Public Schools

I recently performed a monologue as a benefit for our local elementary school's breakfast and lunch programme. The performance raised $800. The school principal invited me to present the cheque at one of their school assemblies. I delivered a cheque to the 192 pre-kindergarten to grade 5s at the school. I was more nervous about that audience than I'd been the previous week at the performance of the play to a sold out adult audience. 

I was so impressed with how wonderful the teachers were with the children and with how the children were with each other, despite age differences, racial differences, social differences and physical and mental health differences.

It's why I feel that home schooling is a poor choice for parents to make. I know there are reasons given and that in some special circumstances it might be the only choice. However, children who do not interact on a daily basis with children and adults from all "walks" of life, in my experience, lack the social skills of tolerance, acceptance and compromise that these other children are forced to learn in such a diverse setting.

We live in a civil society. In the real world one must interact with all people in our society. Isolation is not a socially responsible choice. And it is not a healthy one.

Nasty Colonialism

Of late we are reading about Royal tours of the Caribbean and the protests about past colonialism, slavery and calls for reparation. It is tiresome.

No sensible person would ever say slavery was good or justified. But slavery was not the sole domain of the British. Virtually all of the countries in Europe engaged in colonization to some degree and enslaved blacks and others. Slavery was practiced by The Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Mayan Empire and even in many pre-colonized countries of the world to some degree.

Slavery ended in British territories in 1833, almost 200 years ago. British colonies started gaining independence as early as 1867 and more latterly from the late 1940s on. Jamaica gained independence in 1962, Grenada in 1974, St. Lucia in 1979, Antigua and Barbuda in 1981. Had Britain not colonized much of the world, you can be sure that other countries would have. Had there been no British Empire, it is quite likely Hitler would have won the second World War. Had he done so, what would have been the fate of non-whites in the far reaches of the world? One can only guess, but it does not seem likely the fate of non-Caucasian races would have been more agreeable.

We can’t know what would have transpired in Africa, Australasia or the Americas had Europeans not settled there and colonized there. It seems ludicrous to even imagine that these continents could have ever remained isolated. Just as it seems the world was populated by migration out of Africa, so migration continues today and will continue, whether by reason of population growth, economics, insurrection, or war. Nations will not be islands for one race or culture. Those who wish they were are blind to reality.

I am quite sure the Crown would be more than happy for former colonies to become republics should they wish to do so. I am not aware that they were forced on independence to retain the Monarch as head of state.

It is time people accepted the acknowledgement that bad things have happened over the centuries and stopped demanding endless apologies by people who played no role in those wrongs. As for reparations, I say why. Unless the wrongs were very recent, reparation is meaningless and incalculable. Would the blacks of the Caribbean have been better off had they never come to the Americas? We can’t know. They are not indigenous to those islands any more than were the British, French, Spanish or Dutch who colonized them. Although they were involuntary settlers, they are settlers nonetheless.

I say, those who continue to whine, to perpetuate their victimhood through the injustices done to their ancestors and relish in it, should be thankful for what they have today, and the opportunities that are there for them if they would only seize them.

An Unsettled Discussion

Little did I realize when I wrote something recently that some of the readers would ingest it with a colour that it was never intended to have. The subject was the too frequent contemporary use of the term “settlers” to describe those who are not described as indigenous.

One reader said in surprise and disapproval that my piece indicated that I was saying that “Might is right”. It spoke no such thing. Perhaps she brought that perspective into the reading room with her.

Here is what I wrote:

I resent the term "settlers". Even those who claim to be indigenous are "settlers", migrants if you wish. The world is continuously in motion. Whether it be climate change, wars, poverty hunger, discrimination, persecution or conquest, the world and its people and animals are constantly in movement. The so called indigenous peoples have no greater claim to this land than any others. We are all inhabitants of this planet. And the planet itself is in motion. We are all stewards of this planet, because it is the only home we have. Don't tell me colonialism is wrong when we are looking eagerly to Mars and other planets in the universe for our survival. We all live here, black, brown, white, red, yellow. We are prisms on the rainbow of life. Forget ownership. Think stewardship.

I must say how distressed I was at this reader’s interpretation. I reread what I had written very carefully. What had I said to lead someone to this interpretation. I asked others with whom I had shared it. None of us could see such a position expressed in what I had written.

It was the overuse of the word "Settlers" in an the article I had just read that got to me. I am so tired of sitting and listening repeatedly to sanctimonious speeches of how we are on the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq. The word "Settlers" is used as if to shame those of us who are not "indigenous" and to make us feel like we must apologize for our very presence here.

It is not that in any way I think that our collective European ancestors treated the indigenous populations well, at least for the most part. They did not. And it has been well into the present that we have needed to acknowledge that. But one cannot undo the past. I think one has to start looking forward from now, rather than continuously to the past, at least after one acknowledges the wrongs of the past. One has to move away from the concept of being victims and take charge of where one is at. 

But the mistreatment of the indigenous population of this or other continents was not the subject of my article. That is really a separate, although related issue. My article was about this notion of ownership or entitlement to the land we are living on.

We have a lot to learn from the traditional respect for nature that the indigenous peoples of this and other continents had. Even the Druids had a respect for the natural order in what is now Britain and Ireland. But their life was not pristine.

These are old understandings of the order of things that precede modern times. But time does not stand still. Nor does reality. We have to adapt as the natural order routinely does. 

This concept of some peoples being more entitled to a piece of land than those who come after is, in my view unsustainable. No one is entitled to an unreserved use and occupation of land. But those who do occupy land should be caretakers and respecters of the land and the natural environment.

Indigenous history is oral in nature. And one's oral history tends to reinforce and sometimes invent the good aspects of past events by one’s ancestors. We talk about the indigenous people of North America being here since "time immemorial". All that means is "a very long time, long before we know anything about it".

Yes, 25,000 to 30,000 years of occupation is a long time. And 400 to 1000 years is, in comparison, relatively short. But in the five to seven million years of hominid existence, and the two or two point five million years of the first presumed migrations out of Africa, these time periods are both flecks of sand in the time piece of human history.

My article is merely saying that we as one humanity have been on the move for a very long time. And we are continuing to be on the move for the reasons set out in my article. This movement or migration is only going to increase in the next fifty years and on. So, if we want to survive as a people, then we have to learn to look forward and discover ways to live together.

If the planet continues to move in the direction it is currently heading, then exploration of space may be an option for survival of human beings. I would, however, like to think that, collectively, we have the skills to ensure that life on this planet can be sustained. But the colonizers of the past, some for greed, some for adventure and, yes, many for survival, thought that new frontiers were the only way forward.

I have witnessed those who profess to accept the shame of European colonization voice excitement at the prospect of space exploration and settlement. This seems so inconsistent.

I wish the resources spent on space exploration were being spent on a sustainable future for us and other life forms on this planet. If colonization of space is to take place, one can only hope that we have learned from the errors of the past.

Sadly, I do not think we do learn. Sadly, history does tend to repeat itself. In that event, maybe the end of humanity would not be a bad a thing.

Thoughts About Reconciliation

When I was in high school more than 50 years ago, one day I was playing squash with a friend. I whacked a return ball and unfortunately it hit my friend hard in the face. I said I was sorry. He was angry and replied, “Don’t say ‘sorry’. Just don’t do it again!”

There is no doubt in my mind that when Europeans first came here to settle four hundred years ago, they came to what they assumed and believed to be a largely vacant wilderness inhabited by a few “uncivilized” and primitive human beings. They did not perceive themselves as guests in a foreign land.

They were fortunate enough to learn a little about survival in a harsh terrain and climate from the local inhabitants. These initial “settlers” knew nothing about political correctness. Many had come to avoid persecution, repression or dire situations in their homeland. They were migrants. 

This was not the world of universal education, of instant knowledge or political correctness. It was also not a secular society that these people had been fashioned in. Indeed, it was a rigid religious society locked in dogma, doctrine and intolerance. It was a very different world order that they were raised in with very different sensibilities and understanding. There was only one right way to be and that was their way, the Christian way. Of course, it was also a survival of the fittest society.

And for Christians of the day, it was their duty to save souls and see that nonbelievers were saved from hell and eternal damnation, even if it was against the will of the “heathen”, or sinners – even if it hurt. They were doing God’s will as far as they were concerned. Dreadful things have happened and still are happening in the name of religion.

But could the indigenous peoples have continued indefinitely in their ways on a vast continent where there were many “nations”, some warring, and with different cultures, languages, norms and ways of life. Had the French or British not come, others would have. What is painted as an idyllic life for these inhabitants, even if accurate, could not have lasted.

Today we understand what colonization has done to indigenous peoples around the world has caused great harm. We have learned that the way society treated the poor, the mentally challenged, homosexuals, women and many others was not from today’s perspective good. Our perceptions change over time. The Europeans were not inherently bad people.

As a descendant of “settlers”, who arrived on this continent in the late 1600s through to the late 1800s, am I to feel regret for what happened. Yes, I regret it. But I do not feel responsible for it. I am not personally sorry and saying so will change nothing. How does one undo hundreds of years of history. One can’t. And rewriting it will change nothing. One has to adapt and move forward. My Celtic ancestors had to adapt to a variously conquered homeland, invaded by the Norse, and conquered later by the Romans and then the Norman French.

Today migration is happening from all over the world. People of all cultures and colours are coming here to escape the same types of circumstances that brought the early settlers to this continent hundreds of years ago. The indigenous peoples, themselves migrated here at one time thousands of years ago. Indeed, they may not have been the first people to do so, although there seems to be some evidence those earlier people died out.

I am opposed to apartheid in any form. And it seems to me we have two forms of apartheid in Canada, one involves “Indians” and the other “Quebecois”. There is no way forward in separate societies. The preservation of reserves or distinct societies is not the way to preserve a culture. A culture does not do well in a museum.

Just as the people of Newfoundland had to leave the isolated outports if they wished to survive, people will have to leave these isolated and underserviced reserves to survive in places where better health care, better education and better employment opportunities exist.

There is no amount of money that will salve or cure the wounds of old. If money is to be spent, it has to be spent in a way that offers a sustainable future to the people it is intended for. And we have to stop this love affair with victimization, and blame. Life is complex. And it is not stationary.

Moreover, in my opinion, none of us human beings own this land or have a superior right to it. We are caretakers of it. And we have not done a good job. If this planet “belongs” to anyone it belongs to all of creation. And we are not the masters of it, but its servants.

The No Vote Contingent

There are some who tout the fact that "those who did not vote outnumbered those who did in the most recent election" supports the notion that the anti-vaxers are in the majority. It does nothing of the kind. Voter turnout has seldom been exceptional.

Those who did not vote are not a homogenous group in any way shape or form, nor are they unusual. People do not vote for many reasons: they  

·         are complacent,

·         don't find any of our political parties share their values,

·         are anarchists,

·         are unable for health, disability, geographical or financial reasons to get out and vote,

·         are lazy,

·         are busy,

·         are preoccupied with other things more important to them at the moment,

·         are simply forgetful, or  

·         are disaffected for any number of possible reasons.

The no voters could not form a political party because there is no single issue, belief or value that unites them. What this fact might support is the notion that universal democracy is not all it is held up to be.

CBC Article on Paying Someone to Keep Quiet about Racial Discrimination Allegation

Robyn Miller's article about someone being paid to keep quiet about alleged racial discrimination deserves comment. It infuriates me that CBC does not allow this with respect to so many important articles. 

As a retired lawyer there are sound reasons why settlements of legal proceedings usually demand silence by the person alleging a cause of action. Remember that the person is only alleging something that has not been proven to be the case. Legal proceedings are costly in time, money and other resources. People, including governments, settle legal proceedings brought against them for many reasons: often because the cost of defending the claim is not worth it. 

The person alleging some illegal treatment does not have to accept the settlement if they want their day in "court". If they think they should take the risk of proving their case. or not, because they want to go public, then they can do that.  And, on the other hand,  if money and certainty is more important to them, then they are free to accept a settlement. Don't blame the government for wanting to settle and not have to deal with continuing unproven allegations. 

The government's money is our money. And it has to cover many expenses and causes. It must be used frugally and wisely for the benefit of all.

Of Rules and Common Sense

I think people in Ontario and other provinces that have suffered long lockdowns due to Covid should be given a Nobel Prize for stamina, humour and tolerance.

As cases continue to climb here in Nova Scotia, our two week provincial lockdown is going to be extended. Our Premier has stated that more restrictions will likely be added.

It's nothing like what people elsewhere have had to put up with for a great deal longer, but I am beginning to have a sense of being trapped.

It's laughable really. Unlike many, especially in urban settings, I have a lovely garden to sit in, and a wonderful view. There are no cases where we live. And I just rode my bike across the causeway traversing the Annapolis River to the hardware store. This is a trip of less than 2 kilometers by bike and it would be at most two hundred meters if I had a boat.

However, technically, I have broken the law and could be subject to a $2,000 fine since we are not supposed to leave our "municipality".

The hardware store, which I have in my line of vision from our back room, is in Annapolis Royal. This is its own separate “municipality”. We in Granville Ferry are part of the Municipality of Annapolis County: i.e., these are two separate municipalities even though we in Granville Ferry are side by side and our "Municipality" is surrounding Annapolis Royal.

Initially it was that we were not to leave our "community", which was to be defined by "common sense". Rigid rules unfortunately overshadow common sense. Admittedly, common sense is hard to enforce.

Indeed, unless I want to travel 25 kilometers out of my way within the bounds of our Municipality, I have to pass through Annapolis Royal to get to another part of our "Municipality" just three or four kilometers away. Further, our Municipal office is actually located in Annapolis Royal, as are our dentist, pharmacist, medical clinic and Emergency Department, as well as our closest grocery stores and liquor store.

It may be that the law enforcers would exercise common sense; but sadly, typically law enforcement is not prone to such a talent.

Here endeth the rant. And it's a lovely but chilly day.