Political Geography should be viewed with respect

Just a brief posting, very raw thoughts, but came across recent study that tried to compare administrative differences across Canada, but failed to articulate, that there are vast differences in the political / administrative landscape of Canada. In short, they do things differently in Quebec, than they do in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, and even smaller regions within the provinces.

But many studies fail to acknowledge this, perhaps for fear of reprisals. Political Geography has become very tainted since events of the 1st and 2nd World War, and probably rightly so.  But it can't be ignored. Quebec, like Scotland in the UK has a very different legal structure, and is not directly related to the fact that they speak a different language. They follow different legal code (common law vs Napoleonic/codified).  This has wide and important implications that are often ignored in many comparative studies. I wonder if it is ignored out of ignorance, or out of fear of treading too close to the notion of a 'distinct society'.

Jus Sanguinis for Cows? Are you what you eat?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/us-bides-time-on-meat-labels-201737521.html.

Follow this link for context, but main point of interest is misguided use of ascription of identity, in this case cattle. Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Because animal is born in Canada it will forever be Canadian, even though it may be plugged full of same hormones, as its American counterparts, as it is raised in the United States.

So I am born in America, but plugged full of Canadian Ideology, cultural markers, but I will for ever be labled American? A wider and more peculiar application of jus sanguinis.  The more I think about this, this probably didn't make sense in a world where, some what naively it was assumed people (and cattle didn't travel), and it certainly doesn't make sense in the contemporary world of global travel.

Don't think I've had a chance to mention publication of new book that comments on Metis Identity, and serves to some degree as an update to volume produced by Brown and Peterson Being and Becoming Metis in North America, back in 1985.

Contours of a PeopleMetis Family, Mobility, and History, edited by Nicole St. Onge, Carolyn Podruchny and Brenda Macdougall. I've got a chapter in this one, Against spatialized ethnicity.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're entering (or indeed have entered) an aspatial arrangement, and if technology is leading the charge.  A few recent examples have struck me and got me wondering if it was technology that caused earlier shifts in the late eighteenth century that had western european society moving from a non-spatial (or better yet aspatial) world to a more fully spatialised one, a world where ideally there was full congruence between the Nation and the State.

In the current context, I'm struck by communications technology in particular that no longer cares where we are to assign identity (in this case telephone numbers).  Although somehow they manage to charge for long distance calls. Consider for example MTS's recent approach to a lack of numbers. They've chosen to add three digit codes to all new phone numbers, but where in the past this was known as an 'area code' and truly did refer to an area, the new system presumably because of the mobility of the telephones, simply adds these numbers to any new line.  There is no longer a good way to determine where physically a phone number  is located. If this is the case, what was the technology in the eighteenth century that provided the push into a spatial world. Was it, as I had surmised many years ago, the advent of surveying and cartographic techniques, pioneered by Ambros von Amman, David Thompson, and the rest?

Court upholds native fisher's tax exemption, by Alexandra Paul, Winnipeg Free Press, March 22, 2012.


From this story alone, having not actually read the ruling itself, nor analysed the other cases that have ruled on section 87 of the Indian Act, I'm fascinated by what I see as a trend towards establishing 'indianness' (for lack of a better word) by the principle of jus sanguinis, a right that as the old phrase has it can 'be carried on one's back'.  This is in marked distinction to the territorially bounded principle used in other cases.
 In short, it is no longer necessary to remain on reserve, and I assume more to the point for future decisions, to somehow prove that you or your ancestors were on reserve, or in that specific geographical locale at the time a treaty was signed, to claim rights that were promised and reiterated in various court rulings to ones identity as an aboriginal person.

This deserves closer attention, both to the use of section 87 in recent cases, and the increased recognition that your status / rights to conduct business, engage in social discourse, or otherwise exist as a Canadian, are not bound by the border markers of the reserve.

Been a major career shift since last blogs in the spring. I'm now manager of a publicly accessible database of social services.  Our agency also holds several contracts to supply data and access to individually tailored concerns.  Not that much of a shift from my interests, and a wonderful opportunity to engage in my passion for providing equitable and easy access to what I believe to be relevant information.  Also has me commuting in a very different part of the city, so you can look forward to comments related to the cycling / transportation infrastructure in my town. I also provide commentary on twitter.

Cloud music challenges individual choices

Amazon, this morning (March 29, 2011), just announced cloud music, ahead of rivals apple and google, and got me thinking about the implications of this, especially as it effects easy access to information.  My initial reaction was very postive, as somebody who really never grasped the post walkman (tape or cd) era of portable music.

I had every intention of making the leap and investing in an MP3 player when I was planning a long transatlantic excursion a few years back.  I was looking forward to not hauling my CD collection, something I had been doing for a while, usually in a way that scratched the disks, and left me with only a small subset of my favourite tunes.  However, I very quickly was put off, not only by the limited battery power, but more importantly by the possibility that in addition to an $80.00 investment, I'd probably have to a) buy a new computer to load the music, and b) spend the next 10 hours at least mixing or loading the device.  So I comforted myself with investing in a good headset, and thinking I could at least enjoy the music / muzak provided on board.  It had apparently been a while since I'd flown overseas, and didn't realize there no longer was any music, just television, and nothing that I'd enjoy watching.

So the announcement that I wouldn't have to transfer music to new / various devices seemed attractive, but upon further reflection, I'm very concerned. I can't argue with the convenience, now that many people own and use several devices that are capable of storing and playing music (or that the life span of any individual device is so short that you're seemingly forever transferring files). My concern is two-fold.

First there is the issue, which I've already had to wrestle with regarding safe and reliable storage on line of my reading material (i.e. refworks), regarding third party storage.

Second, there is a more important argument that is at the very heart of fair distribution, the increased dependence upon internet providers who in various jurisdiction are battling for the rights to run the show on a 'for-profit' model in a still largely unregulated environment.

In theory the music has been paid for once, and under the old model of ownership, it was mine to enjoy (with admittedly a few provisos: I couldn't broadcast it, charge for 'public concerts' etc.).  And there was something very liberating to be able to flop down in your own pad, crank your own tunes, or take a drive (if you must) roof down, open road partake in any other cliche images you can imagine.  Under the new model, we are more and more dependent on suitable internet access.  Being less technology burdened than many travellers, I'm not sure how good internet access is at 30 000 ft, or in a train or bus for that matter; but it sure was easier, to take a few tapes, cd, a player, headset and some batteries, and there was no one to blame but yourself, if you forget any of those pieces.  Moreover, as we've already seen in so many other circumstances, suitable internet access remains determined by population density, and demand for service, and ability for the larger community to provide infrastructure.  Where availability of music (and for that matter any kind of information) was once the privilege of individuals, and sometimes even proudly defended / protected, its mere enjoyment is being off-loaded to an entirely incompatible model, run by a third party with interests completely at odds with those of individual choice.  How ironic is that in a society that otherwise continues to pride itself on individual freedoms. (Of course that's another story).