Urban Elites, Natives and Settlers....

[Kirkhill]

All this started with Chrystia Freeland telling the Spud Islanders she didn't need a car and reading Tasha Kheiriddin's take in the National Post.

Tasha Kheiriddin: The carbon tax is coming back to bite the Liberals, hard

Only 32 per cent of Canadians think the carbon tax is effective at reducing fuel consumption — and they're right

nationalpost.com

People	Area (km2)	km2/person	MPs
40,000,000	9,985,000	0.2	338

Ignore the MPs for a bit. I'll be back to them.

Census Metropolitan Areas	Population	% of Population	Area (km2)	% of Area	Density (People/km2)
Primary Downtowns	1,281,474
Secondary Downtowns	351,930
Downtowns	1,633,404	4%	303	0.003%	5385
Urban Fringes - 10 min	6,484,325	16%	3,707	0.037%	1749
Near Suburb - 20 min	9,024,144	23%	17,091	0.171%	528
Intermediate Suburb - 30 min	5,055,023	13%	22,873	0.229%	221
Distant Suburb - >30 min	5,436,153	14%	76,566	0.767%	71
Urban Totals	27,633,049	69%	120,541	1.2%	229

4% of Canada's population enjoy Chrystia Freeland's campus lifestyle, living within cycling distance of a subway and a college campus.

The rest of Canada uses cars.

The sweet spot appears to be about 20 to 30 minutes from downtown. 66% of the population lives a commuting life spending an hour in the car each day.
Now, I would argue that if the 66% wanted to live like Chrystia's 4% they would have moved a while ago and the suburbs would be imploding and not spreading.

Off hand I would suggest that the Car Party has it.

By the way a real city, like Singapore, with a population of 5,637,000 has a density of 7804 people per km2. London is comparable. New York has about double the density. No matter how far Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver expand they are never going to achieve the same tax base that those cities have. The more they expand the less dense they become and the more it costs to build the infrastructure they crave. They should just quit and work within their means. Maybe once they have perfected their urban utopias they will attract more people from the suburbs.

....


Reviewing the above data found me considering the native situation which brought me around to the number of MPs
From Stats Canada - Self-Identified - 5% of the Population

Indigenous

1,807,250

5%

Looking at that number in context of Canada at large.

	People	Area (km2)	km2/person	MPs
Total	40,000,000	9,985,000	0.2	338
Native	1,306,382	7,790,605	6.0	17
	3%	78%		5%
Settler	38,693,618	2,194,395	0.1	321
	97%	22%		95%

So the settler population, 93 to 95% of the total population occupies 22% of the land at an average density of 0.1 km2/person or 10 people per km2
The native population, 3-5% of the total population occupies 78% of the land at an average density of 6 km2/person.

The native land and density stats are drawn from the 17 largest ridings in Canada.

	People	Area (km2)	km2/person
Nunavut	31,906	2,093,190	65.6
Labrador	26,728	294,330	11.0
Abitibi - James Bay	85,475	854,754	10.0
NWT	41,462	1,346,106	32.5
Desnethe Churchill	69,471	342,903	4.9
Churchill	85,148	494,701	5.8
Kenora	55,977	321,741	5.7
Timmins	83,104	251,599	3.0
Algoma	79,801	100,103	1.3
Abitibi - Temiscaming	102,794	37,429	0.4
Manicouagan	94,766	264,226	2.8
Yukon	33,897	482,443	14.2
Skeena	90,586	327,275	3.6
Cariboo	108,252	83,193	0.8
Peace River	107,382	243,276	2.3
Peace River	108,095	105,924	1.0
Fort McMurray	101,538	147,412	1.5

Do I have a point?

The native population occupying 78% of the land is roughly the same as Chrystia Freeland's urban population occupying 0.003% of the land.
And in between we have 90% of the population living on 20% of the land.

And Chrystia Freeland's buddies are making the rules for the rest of us...

 

[FJAG]

I'm with you on about 95% of what you say - and that's the important 95% as well.

I think your stats on native v settler lands is skewed. To the best of my knowledge native occupied/controlled/owned or whatever you want to call it is around 600,000 km2. Around 8,800,000 km2 (or 89% of Canada's land surface) is crown land being neither native nor settler nor relevant to your argument which I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with.

We're really talking about the remaining 11% of the land mass which is occupied and where the densities, and the reliance on motor transport is both relevant and vital and where the lower and middleclass are being badly damaged by this government's energy policies.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with you on about 95% of what you say - and that's the important 95% as well.

I think your stats on native v settler lands is skewed. To the best of my knowledge native occupied/controlled/owned or whatever you want to call it is around 600,000 km2. Around 8,800,000 km2 (or 89% of Canada's land surface) is crown land being neither native nor settler nor relevant to your argument which I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with.

We're really talking about the remaining 11% of the land mass which is occupied and where the densities, and the reliance on motor transport is both relevant and vital and where the lower and middleclass are being badly damaged by this government's energy policies.

I'll agree with you on title. Although I point out that there is a difference of opinion that is as broad as the difference between 600,000 km2 and 8,800,000 km2. The Hunter Gatherers needed access to that 8,800,000 km2 to support a million or so people. 600,000 km2 will support a Settler life style. That is my meaning when I talk about the land area. The Government may own the land but the Natives live on the land, regardless of who owns the forestry and mining rights.

I think that given we "need" 0.003% of the land for the hard urban life and 20% at most for the rest of the Settlers to continue living life as they do it seems to me that we can afford to be a bit flexible on negotiations for the other 80%.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Am I to understand that "everything else" is to be assigned to a particular group by default? Much of what goes on in the hinterlands is mainly for the benefit of people in high density areas, and much of the hinterlands is not really used.

 

[Kirkhill]

Am I to understand that "everything else" is to be assigned to a particular group by default? Much of what goes on in the hinterlands is mainly for the benefit of people in high density areas, and much of the hinterlands is not really used.

And much of the hinterlands is not really used....

And there, I think, is the crux of the matter. Who is defining "used"?

Is the user scavenging for miles trying to feed his extended family? Or is the user extracting resources to feed multiple families?

And can both systems coexist.
My gut level appreciation is that they can and that it is just the termd of the contract that need to be defined.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And much of the hinterlands is not really used....

And there, I think, is the crux of the matter. Who is defining "used"?

Is the user scavenging for miles trying to feed his extended family? Or is the user extracting resources to feed multiple families?

And can both systems coexist.
My gut level appreciation is that they can and that it is just the termd of the contract that need to be defined.

There's also this reality. Glad we don't have to deal with this problem, right @Colin Parkinson?


"Well over 100 per cent of B.C. Crown land is claimed as the traditional territory of one or more of the province's 198 First Nations."

It’s up to First Nations to resolve overlapping claims: B.C. Treaty Commission report

Adds that reconciliation with first peoples via treaty process remains valuable despite slow pace

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is a huge issue. Substance based harvesting can take up a huge area to feed a small number of people. One area might be for medicinal plants, another for fish, another for beaver, one for cultural practices and then another for caribou. Other factors are that the traditional territories are often divided into holdings by the different houses in the band. So a project may have a huge impact on one family/Clan and not on the others. Then there are impact on traditional way of life by a project, if it does something like alter caribou migration routes, so no or fewer caribou enter into the traditional territory because of an effect that did not happen in their territory. There is also cumulative effects. Examples of this is the Site C dam that basically removes the last remaining productive river valley habitat from the West Moberbly Band territory. Or for the Blueberry FN, habitat fragmentation and water use by the Oil & Gas companies, logging Companies and farmers, leaving their territory with little pockets of habitat disconnected from each other.
Now the Land Claim issue is another wrinkle, roughly 130% of BC is claimed due to the ongoing wars, slave raids and resource competition that was going on between the various indigenous populations when the British Crown imposed their will on them. These claims take on new meaning when a project falls into the disputed area and the proponent/government is trying to determine who should benefit from revenue sharing agreements. These agreements also strengthen the position of said band in any future treaty agreements as well. These battles can become quite bitter between the bands.
Toss into the mix the internal competitions in each band between the Clans/Families, Band Councils, Elder councils and those that want to preserve the traditional way of life vs those that want more job opportunities. FN consultations is a great way to increase your bald spot.

I will also add that there is growing realization that Treaty Agreements may not be a good idea for some bands as it forces them to eventually become self-funding, but without the likelhood of any revenue generation within their territory. Much better to draw out the process and continue to collect the funds from the governments.

 

[Kirkhill]

The language families tell an interesting tale. West of the Rockies, along the coast, there are a large number of discrete isolates that are tightly confined to small geographic areas. I'm guessing that disputes tend to revolve around whether the dividing line is the river between the mountains or the mountains between the rivers.

East of the Rockies, and particularly in Canada we have large areas where one language family dominates. On the Arctic Coast it is the Inuit languages. In the Western Interior it is the Dene languages. Across the rest of woodland Canada, extending into the Prairie Parklands and the Foothills it is the Algic or Algonkian languages (to include Anishinabe, Blackfoot, Ojibwe, Cree and MicMac) that dominates. Siouxan languages push up onto the grasslands from the south east and the Iroquoian languages dominate the St Lawrence Valley.

Algonkian

The Algic languages (also Algonquian–Wiyot–Yurok or Algonquian–Ritwan)[1][2] are an indigenous language family of North America. Most Algic languages belong to the Algonquian subfamily, dispersed over a broad area from the Rocky Mountains to Atlantic Canada. The other Algic languages are the Yurok and Wiyot of northwestern California, which, despite their geographic proximity, are not closely related. All these languages descend from Proto-Algic, a second-order proto-language estimated to have been spoken about 7,000 years ago and reconstructed using the reconstructed Proto-Algonquian language and the Wiyot and Yurok languages.

Algic languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iroquois

Archeological evidence places Haudenosaunee in the area around present-day New York state by approximately 500 to 600 CE, and possibly as far back as 4000 BCE. Their distinctive culture seems to have developed by about 1000 CE.

Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)

The Haudenosaunee, or “people of the longhouse,” commonly referred to as Iroquois or Six Nations, are members of a confederacy of Aboriginal nations known ...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

Inuit

Early forms of the Inuit language are believed to have been spoken by the Thule people, who migrated east from Beringia towards the Arctic Archipelago, which had been occupied by people of the Dorset culture since the beginning of the 2nd millennium. By 1300, the Inuit and their language had reached western Greenland, and finally east Greenland roughly at the same time the Viking colonies in southern Greenland disappeared. It is generally believed that it was during this centuries-long eastward migration that the Inuit language became distinct from the Yupik languages spoken in Western Alaska and Chukotka.

Inuit languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Thule (US: /ˈθuːli/, /ˈtuːli/, UK: /ˈθjuːli/)[1][2] or proto-Inuit were the ancestors of all modern Inuit. They developed in coastal Alaska by the year 1000 and expanded eastward across northern Canada, reaching Greenland by the 13th century.[3] In the process, they replaced people of the earlier Dorset culture that had previously inhabited the region. The appellation "Thule" originates from the location of Thule (relocated and renamed Qaanaaq in 1953) in northwest Greenland, facing Canada, where the archaeological remains of the people were first found at Comer's Midden. The links between the Thule and the Inuit are biological, cultural, and linguistic.[citation needed]

Evidence supports the idea that the Thule (and also the Dorset, but to a lesser degree) were in contact with the Vikings, who had reached the shores of Canada in the 11th century as part of Norse colonization of North America. In Viking sources, these peoples are called the Skrælingjar. Some Thule migrated southward, in the "Second Expansion" or "Second Phase". By the 13th or 14th century, the Thule had occupied an area inhabited until then by the Central Inuit, and by the 15th century, the Thule replaced the Dorset. Intensified contacts with Europeans began in the 18th century. Compounded by the already disruptive effects of the "Little Ice Age" (1650–1850), the Thule communities broke apart, and the people were henceforward known as the Eskimo, and later, Inuit.

Thule people - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dene

Na-Dene (/ˌnɑːdɪˈneɪ/; also Nadene, Na-Dené, Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit, Tlina–Dene) is a family of Native American languages that includes at least the Athabaskan languages, Eyak, and Tlingit languages. Haida was formerly included, but is now considered doubtful. By far the most widely spoken Na-Dene language today is Navajo.

Na-Dene languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Navajo people, who now reside in parts of former Pueblo territory, referred to the ancient people as Anaasází, an exonym meaning "ancestors of our enemies", referring to their competition with the Pueblo peoples. The Navajo now use the term in the sense of referring to "ancient people" or "ancient ones",[5] whereas others ascribe the meaning of Anasazi to "those who are different from our people"; (lit. Ana = "different from us" + asaza = "the old ones").[6]
Hopi people use the term Hisatsinom, meaning "ancient people", to describe the Ancestral Puebloans.[1]

Ancestral Puebloans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Archaeological and historical evidence suggests the Athabaskan ancestors of the Navajos and Apaches arrived in the Southwest around 1400 AD. The Navajo oral tradition is transcribed to retain references to this migration.[citation needed]
Initially, the Navajos were largely hunters and gatherers. Later, they learned farming from Pueblo peoples, growing mainly the traditional Native American "Three Sisters" of corn, beans, and squash. They adopted herding sheep and goats from the Spaniards as a main source of trade and food. Meat became essential in the Navajo diet. Sheep became a form of currency and family status. [8] Women began to spin and weave wool into blankets and clothing after learning this from Pueblo Indians; they created items of highly valued artistic expression, which were also traded and sold.

Navajo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"First" Nations have history as well.

And the West Coast appears to have more that most.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

 

[FSTO]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

Another term Progressives use to divide us.

 

[YZT580]

There's also this reality. Glad we don't have to deal with this problem, right @Colin Parkinson?


"Well over 100 per cent of B.C. Crown land is claimed as the traditional territory of one or more of the province's 198 First Nations."

It’s up to First Nations to resolve overlapping claims: B.C. Treaty Commission report

Adds that reconciliation with first peoples via treaty process remains valuable despite slow pace

www.theglobeandmail.com

Most of the first nations groupings claim that they are not owners of the land but caretakers. So how to reconcile this with their claims? After all, back in the 17th century there was much less than half a million across all of Canada so ownership was a total impossibility: if ownership implies the ability to physically occupy the land. They really have no greater claim to any land that wasn't agreed to by treaty and that wasn't subsequently sold than the saxons have to mainland Britain.

 

[Good2Golf]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

Settling for mediocre government?

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are probably some non-settlers who don't like "Indians".

Basically, what everyone wants others to call them is usually some variation of "you special people".

 

[Halifax Tar]

How about, I dunno... Canadian ?

 

[Kirkhill]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

I doubt if anyone would consider me progressive. But there you go.

I suppose I could have said First Nations and Others.

If we want to get tendentiously pedantic we could describe the Iroquois as Settlers in that they imported Palisaded Settlements (some would call them forts) along with their southern agriculture based on squash, corn and beans. Their culture shares a lot with both the Aztecs and Toltecs as well as the Ancient People of Arizona that the Dene Navajo called the Anasazi. They have more in common with the later European settlers than they do with the Inuit and Dene hunter-gatherers. They do share some commonalities with the Algonkian tribes in that the Algonkians pursued a more vegetarian diet, supplementing meat and fish with the Eastern Agricultural Complex.

The Eastern Agricultural Complex in the woodlands of eastern North America was one of about 10 independent centers of plant domestication in the pre-historic world. Incipient agriculture dates back to about 5300 BCE. By about 1800 BCE the Native Americans of the woodlands were cultivating several species of food plants, thus beginning a transition from a hunter-gatherer economy to agriculture. After 200 BCE when maize from Mexico was introduced to the Eastern Woodlands, the Native Americans of the eastern United States and adjacent Canada slowly changed from growing local indigenous plants to a maize-based agricultural economy. The cultivation of local indigenous plants other than squash and sunflower declined and was eventually abandoned. The formerly domesticated plants returned to their wild forms.[1]

The first four plants known to have been domesticated at the Riverton Site in Illinois in 1800 BCE were goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri), sunflower (Helianthus annuus var. macrocarpus), marsh elder (Iva annua var. macrocarpa), and squash (Cucurbita pepo ssp. ovifera). Several other species of plants were later domesticated.[2]

archaeological techniques demonstrated that by 1800 BCE the Native Americans of the eastern woodlands had learned to cultivate indigenous crops independently and that indigenous crops formed an important part of their diets.

After 200 BCE when maize from Mexico was introduced to the Eastern Woodlands

cultivation of most indigenous plants ceased in favor of maize agriculture about 900 CE

So just about the time the Eastern Woodlands natives were settling down to an agricultural lifestyle some other folks showed up with different crops and built their own fortified settlements.

This is separate from the Anishinaabe developments based on the pursuit of wild rice and fresh water mussels as staple foods to supplement meat and fish and the fruits of the woodlands.

 

[lenaitch]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

As do I. Whenever I hear the term, I immediately lose interest in whatever is being discussed, regardless of the merits of discussion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How about, I dunno... Canadian ?

Oh, perfect, a name stolen from the first nations and repurposed to meet the needs of the colonizers...

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh, perfect, a name stolen from the first nations and repurposed to meet the needs of the colonizers...

And then stolen from the habitants.

 

[OldSolduer]

I hate the term settler. How am I settler when I was born here ?

I agree with this.

The Boers in South Africa consider themselves African IIRC. As we should term ourselves "Canadians" without the hyphenation.

 

[Kirkhill]

An Aussie view on Canada

Australia threatens to become the next Canada​

A referendum on the rights of Aborigines could import North American racial division to my country
ALEXANDER DOWNER6 September 2023 • 6:00am


Australia is today consumed by a debate about Aboriginal affairs that threatens to change my country considerably for the worse. On October 14, the government is to hold a referendum on whether to create within the country’s written constitution a new body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It would be made up of indigenous people, and both government and parliament would be obliged to consult it on issues that may affect these communities.
There have been scant details on how it would work. Astonishingly, for example, the government has not made clear how representatives might join the new body. Apparently members would be selected – but on what basis and qualification exactly? That’s still a secret.
There is also confusion about the definition of issues that may be judged to affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After all, they are Australian and are therefore affected by issues that affect all Australians, such as interest rate decisions, the evolution of the Aukus agreement, variations in the taxation system, and so on. Will they have to be consulted on all of it?
Activists say the Voice will make policies more responsive to the needs of Aborigines. In particular, they focus on those indigenous people who live in remote communities. In reality, however, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in Australia’s major cities or in regional communities near the capital cities.
As for those in remote communities, they are typically small – only several hundred people strong – and can be literally hundreds of miles from the next community. It wouldn’t matter whether they were indigenous or not. For anyone living in such an environment, access to normal health services, education and broader community services is going to be challenging to say the least. Their predicament is not one of identity.
Thankfully, with just six weeks to go until referendum day, the polls indicate that the public will reject the Voice. The practical questions partly explain why people on the whole seem cold on the idea; the lack of clarity and scepticism about the efficacy of the scheme are electorally damaging.
But for Australians, there is a more profound concern about this proposal. Modern Australia has, almost since its foundation, been an aggressively egalitarian society. It is ingrained in the zeitgeist of the country that, regardless of your social background, your race, your religion or your ethnicity, you’re no better, or no worse, than the next man or woman. The Voice, on the other hand, is an extrapolation of North America’s identity politics, importing into Australia the divisive rhetoric that has wrought havoc in nations such as Canada and the United States. Far from uniting communities, such wokery redefines a nation, separating it into racial groups.
For the first time in the modern era, Australians will be divided into those whose ancestors came before 1788 when the first British settlement was established, and those whose ancestors came after 1788. Those with pre-1788 ancestry will be entitled to a formalised constitutional process unavailable to anyone else.
This may shape our politics in ways that proponents of identity politics would approve, but for the many Australians, including myself, who railed against apartheid in South Africa because it created a system of discrimination based on race, the idea of injecting a racial hierarchy into our nation is abhorrent.
Advocates of the Voice believe it is only right that, as Australians, we should accept the crimes of our forebears towards the indigenous people. Sadly, this is an idea which, in both the UK and Australia, many have adopted. Suddenly, we are responsible not just for the good things that our ancestors did to create the prosperity, security and good health that we have today, but also for the bad things, and should pay a penalty for those. We must, they think, repent for “intergenerational” sins.
The huge campaign in support of the Voice being pushed by the government, trade union leaders, major corporations and universities must be defeated. I believe that the average punter won’t be pushed around by the big end of town. Common sense is likely to prevail on October 14, and Australians will hopefully slip back into their deeply ingrained egalitarian traditions.

---

Alexander Downer is a former Australian foreign minister and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom

Australia threatens to become the next Canada

A referendum on the rights of Aborigines could import North American racial division to my country

www.telegraph.co.uk