Who Are the Métis?

I thought I understood who the Métis were. I was never sure if I agreed with their official status that is virtually identical to the First Nations, but I thought I knew what their self-described label meant. Quite simply - to be allowed to call oneself a Métis and to benefit from whatever (no matter how small) recognition of that fact, one must have one ancestor who at some time during the 1600 or early 1700s to have been of First Nation Heritage. Generally, these relations occurred between Indigenous women and male Europeans involved in the fur trade. Their status has been confirmed by the constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Métis argue that they have a distinctive culture including a unique language (which logically must just be a combination of Indigenous, French and English), dance, music and food. There is a history that includes a revolt against the Canadian Government and a treaty with that same government. While I had never thought about it - it seems logical that the Métis were more likely to live in the Prairies than in the Maritimes.

However, none of that should award them special status. I appreciate the fact that there is a specific group of people who have some cultural ties and who have lived in the same general area for a couple of centuries - but there are people whose families have lived in Quebec or the Maritimes for longer. We accept that Acadians have a culture, a language and a history of repression, but we do not give them special status. Although to be fair, there are those in Quebec with their own language, food etc who because of that and the fact that their roots in Quebec go back to the 1600s do demand, and get special status.

There is no doubt that the Indigenous peoples of Canada deserve special status and recognition. They were here first - for at least 10,000 years. We, as Canadians, live on land that frequently was either fraudulently obtained or just taken. The very least we owe those First Nations is the recognition of their special status as separate nations. But that is not true of the Métis. They, as a collective, were not here first, they "married" into a culture, had some kids and combined parts of that lifestyle with their European roots. That does not make them a separate nation. If some members of that group wish to declare themselves Indigenous - fair enough. But as they present themselves - they as a group are no more special than are Acadians or for that matter Ukrainians.

What makes the discussion particularly relevant in 2019 is that there are some people in the Maritimes who are using the word métis to define their cultural roots. The Métis of the Prairies and some Indigenous people are not happy. They appear to want that term to be restricted only to them. The Métis want to restrict others, who claim perhaps some specific cultural activities and certainly some genetic right to claim the term, to not do so.

It strikes me that the Métis are similar to those who build a cottage on a small lake and then want to have rules created so that it is harder for anyone else to build a cottage on that lake or a university group who have their rights to exist enshrined, but then want a say in who else can form a group.

The problem with identity politics is that while they may strengthen the capacity of that group to defend their rights - it prevents others from doing so. When we isolate ourselves by saying we are special - the rest of the statement logically is - and you are not. We will not solve the world's problem's by isolating people.

Three Questions for Mr. Ford

1) Can you read?
2) Do you read?
3) Do you enjoy reading?

The above three questions seem particularly relevant given the fact that Mr. Ford is cutting some critical library services. Specifically, the Ontario Government has proposed to halve budgets of the Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service-North (https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/18/ford-government-cuts-ontario-library-service-budgets-in-half.html). These are the services that ensure that all Ontarians have access to all of the library books within the total system. For example - if your small, perhaps rural library cannot afford to buy a book that you want or need to read - the above services will find the book for you at some other library and then send it to your home library. It is a wonderful system that means that everyone has equal access to information. It is a service that is particularly useful to rural or isolated communities and for people who lack sufficient income to buy books.

One has to assume that given Mr. Ford's age and his job, that he is at least functionally literate to survive in the world he lives in. That is - he can read a menu, subway directions (as if he ever takes the subway alone!) and understands basic written communications. Although it is true that many people who are not literate can fake their way through a variety of daily living activities, Mr. Ford must be above that level ( I hope!).

However, just because someone can read, does not mean that they willing or easily read. There are no indications that Mr. Ford reads anything other than the comments of pollsters and sycophants who want to curry his favour. I suspect that any reports that he has to read are summarized and/or "dumbed" down. There are no indications that he ever reads anything that requires concentration or intellectual processing.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Ford probably has less time than I to read for pleasure. I, as a retired person, have a lot more control over my time. I do not have to attend political fund-raising meetings so that people can bask in my "wonderfulness"; I do not have to spend my evening talking to people who either agree with me or else do not want to anger me and I certainly do not have to spend endless hours looking as if I care what other people are saying. But still, there must be a few hours here and there when others would pick up a book - either to relax or to learn about something new. Surely before going to bed, he has a few minutes. He would find that reading something is relaxing - it calms the mind down, it allows one to drift off to sleep. Of course, if one's mind is already a blank, perhaps calming it is not necessary for a good night's sleep.

Perhaps if Mr. Ford read for something resembling pleasure or because of a desire to learn he would appreciate that access to books is a privilege that millions and millions of people around the world do not have. Ontarians have had it and now some of them don't. His government's decision to halve the budgets of the Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service-North is urban-centric in that it does not recognize the needs of rural or isolated Ontario, it assumes that everyone is as uninterested in books as he is, or as for his rich friends, neighbours and colleagues, everyone has sufficient funds to buy want they want or need.

It is a small thing in terms of the many problems the world faces. But surely we should not be going backwards in terms of empowering people to have access to information.

Collingwood - Going to the Coyotes

It has been reported that parts of Collingwood, Ontario have a coyote problem, or rather pet owners in Collingwood have a problem with coyotes. Coyotes, a mid-sized canine, readily adapts to urban or semi-urban environments. Of all of the predators, they may be the least afraid of humans, having been habituated for at least the last few decades to living in close proximity to humans. They apparently will eat anything smaller than themselves including rodents, cats and small dogs. Humans are seldom attacked and I could not find any examples of an adult being killed. Conceivably a small child could be at risk if they were left for an extended time - unsupervised.

There are some residents of Collingwood that want someone to do something about the coyotes that are present. Not because they are dangerous to people going about their business but because there is a risk to people's pets that are running loose. Some people have advocated for a trapping program that will capture and then release the animals somewhere else, while another group has suggested that they will sue the city for not doing enough to protect their property.

Trapping and then releasing the animals somewhere else is a great suggestion except that it assumes that there is somewhere else that wants extra coyotes and the animals will not find their way back. The plan also forgets that nature abhors a vacuum and other coyotes will just move into the empty spaces. In other words - it will do no good at all.

Suing the city is an interesting concept - make the city fight an expensive lawsuit (with tax payer's money) to protect a relatively small number of animals whose owners who generally, have paid far too much for the animal and who want their animals to be able to run free. I can appreciate the fact that people can become very attached to their pets. I respect the fact that some if not most of those owners lavish attention and good care upon their animals. I can understand that part of the joy of owning a pet is that one can let them run around free - unencumbered leases or ropes etc. But I have to question if the rest of us should to contribute to an urban dwellers desire to have some sort of exotic and useless pet.

A pug in Collingwood was killed by a coyote a few weeks ago. Depending on where the animal was bought, it could have cost somewhere near $1,000. A $1000.00 for an animal that has never in its perhaps 2,000-year history served any purpose except to be cuddled by humans. That seems excessive to me. It is not up to me to decide if that is a good use of that individual's income - I know it is not a good use of my money to support their desires. If someone wants a pet, it is up to them to figure out how to look after it.

If people are concerned about the safety of their animals - clean up your garbage, bird feeders and fruit trees, build a fence around your back yard, don't let your cats run around outside and think about getting a bigger dog.

Poverty and Capitalist - Divide and Conquer

The April issue of The Walrus (https://thewalrus.ca/) was all about food - what we eat, where it comes from, who does not have enough etc. Two articles, in particular, attracted my interest. One was about the difficulty for Indigenous people to access traditional foods from the land, the second article was about the issue of food security (or the lack thereof) for people who live in poverty. Predictably, the former article shaped the discussion of Indigenous people's food insecurity around colonialism. It argued in part that the reasons why Indigenous people could not hunt etc were the repressive and destructive rules of the government whose purpose was to destroy First Nation's culture and to force assimilating. The second article, specifically towards the end focused on the fact that the issue of food insecurity could not be solely be resolved by building bigger or better food banks, or by teaching people to cook in groups or to participate in community gardens. Food insecurity is the result of poverty - and that is the issue that must be addressed.

I would hope that there is no one left in Canada ( perhaps a naive hope) who would disagree with the fact that the federal government and its agents have had since its inception, a clear and specific policy of forcing Indigenous people to assimilate into the European world. These policies not only rejected First Nation's values but systematically did all that it could to eradicate those values and the cultures that created them. The damage caused by these policies has been destructive and long-lasting. However, we could ensure that all Indigenous people had both the opportunity and the support to be able to hunt and fish as often as they wanted to where ever they wanted to (including the National Parks) and it would still not be enough food. Whether or not everyone accepts it or not - the world has changed since the 1700s. There are not enough animals in the wild to feed all of the people. Climate change, extraction of resources (the economies that support our education and health care) and the growth in the population all have ensured that we cannot go back.

It is clear that all Canadians (including First Nation communities and individuals) are experiencing food insecurity because they lack sufficient funds to buy food. It seems to me that rather than have the poor and the Indigenous people competing with each other for scarce government dollars to supplement national programs to feed them, they should be allies in the fight to eradicate poverty. The fight should not be about whose need is greater or who have suffered worse in the past - there should not be some sort of competition about who most deserves the help. Such fighting amongst those who need assistance will only reinforce the capitalist ideology that those who control the resources and the means of production have the right to decide who gets the hand-out. Capitalist ideology expects to be able to divide and thereby conquer. And they have been successful.

If Canadians want to ensure that no one goes to bed hungry, that no one has to decide if they should purchase needed medication or food or that no child misses a school trip because there is no money in the family bank account - then all Canadians must agree that everyone has the right to earn/get sufficient money to support themselves in a reasonable fashion. Not because they are Indigenous, not because they are immigrants, not because they live with a mental illness - but because they are Canadians.

If this is to happen - we need to stop suggesting that one group's needs are more important than another's. The band-aid approach of "fixing" symptoms rather than the underlining problem has never worked. We need to fix the problem of some people not being allowed to benefit from the society that they, in some way contribute to.