The refutation of United Nations and journalistic evidence is very strange to me. On what evidence does the author make these claims ? Can he point to independent sources supporting the claim that "core evidence remains sparse or exaggerated." ?

There should be some significance read in the use of Christian holidays as date markers as it highlights the Mi'kmaq as a Christian nation and emphasizes the British's position as unjust foreign aggressors.

Speaks to the advanced hostility between the Mi'kmaq and the British as they are willing to accuse Acadian refugees of being British allies to to the militant clause in the oath of allegiance towards the British Crown.

An instance of the British breaking a direct promise towards the Mi'kmak, for which they would become infamous.

This shows the Mi'kmaq commitment to peace and their tireless attempts to have their territorial claims respected so a peaceful coexistence can be met

This passage refers to both practical and religious claims towards ownership and thus implies that the British are both legally and morally at fault for settling Halifax.

Shows both the great significance of Kjipuktuk as a site of heritage as well as one of the last unadulterated river basins in Mi'kma'ki thus representing one of the last access points to the riverways which the Mi'kmaq were reliant on.

The use of the term 'great captain' is interesting as it still denotes respect and a desire towards cooperation but does not have the same reverential quality of earlier messages and rather implies that the author accepted the governor's position as statesman and perhaps an equal but not in relation to their independent nation.

Specifically referring to the trading posts and forts of Mi'kma'ki as a loan from one sovereign to another and thus able to be revoked.

Indigenous groups explicitly accusing the British of acting against Christian values and demonstrating a clear understanding of European law and ownership as well as how the British are committing action illegal even within their own power structures.

A significant sign-off as it highlights that the Mi'kmaq were not interested in building a hostile relationship with the British but rather desired the freedom to conduct themselves as they wished and believed they could operate in this way without outright conflict.

Further evidence of Mi'kmaq autonomy from European powers and Independence as a functioning and unique society.

A clear challenge and display of discontent with British Imperial presence and policy. The blatant refutation of British governance after the ousting of the more friendly French is clear and representative of the resistance of Mi'kmaq indigenous people to colonial suppression.

The French loss of Port Royal to the English would occur multiple times and was a sign of the tenuous control the French actually maintained over their colony of Acadie, but also illuminates how the British were unable to establish long-term bases of power while the French and their allies the Mi'kmaq controlled the inland forts and rivers.

Highlights how little actual power European's controlled over inland Mi'kma'ki as well as alludes to the reliance of early Europeans on friendly relations with the Mi'kmaq to maintain their presence in the territory.

I wonder if this was something the French interpreter added because it was actually the Mi'kmaq who were kind to the French settlers by helping them learn how to survive the winters. This reinforces the ideas stated earlier which attempt to make the Mi'kmaq people look lower than the settlers

• for: carbon inequality, question - new COP - focused on elites?

• comment

  • while COP28 fights over which nations bear what responsibility, from this perspective, there is an entirely different class of people that must be held responsible, not at the nation state level, but at the individual level. Why isn't there a COP where the elites are held responsible?

• question

  • Are we making a grave category error in holding the wrong class of people responsible? Should questions of carbon equity concern both high polluting nations AND individuals?
  • At the very least, should we formally recognize a parallel set of responsibilities and elevate that recognition to the level of COP conventions to deal with the problem?

Bei einwöchigen Verhandlungen zur Vorbereitung eines Abkommens zur Eindämmung von Plastikmüll haben vor allem die Vertreter:Innen Öl exportierender Länder eine Einigung auf eine Einschränkung der Produktion von Plastik verhindert. https://taz.de/Verhandlungen-ueber-Plastik-Abkommen/!5974520/

Wenige Tage nach dem „2023 State of the Climate report“ listet der „Interconnected Disaster Report“ der UN University sechs Bedrohungen für die lebenserhaltenden Systeme des Planeten auf, darunter Gletscherschmelze, Grundwasserverlust, Artensterben und Erhitzung. Nur ein transformativer Wandel statt aufschiebender Lösungen kann die wachsenden Risiken miteinander verbundener Katastrophen verringern. https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/climat/climat-la-vie-sur-la-planete-terre-est-en-etat-de-siege-alertent-des-scientifiques-20231025_2MHSFZZWUNHZPPBONAUFLKKUZM/

Studie: https://interconnectedrisks.org/

Merh zum 2023 State of the Climate report: https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3A%22report%3A%202023%20state%20of%20the%20climate%20report%22

This conference appears to involve the same nations who would eventually sign the treaty of 1725. Namely; Penobscot (Penawahpskewi), Noridgwock (Nanrantsouak), St. John's (Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet), Cape Sable (Kespukwitk Mi'kmaq).

he language used through the text seems friendly and warm. Through this text were are able to see that there is recognition that both sides were I the wrong and that not once side acted less violently than the other. It also shows understanding to the opposing side and that they do not want to stay enemies but rather they hope to reconcile and make peace

Not only were the British here attempting to bring peace between the Colonist and Indigenous, but to also end Hostilities between the Indigenous themselves, as possible alliances and treaties between different tribes and colonists could spark future conflicts.

Like with the previous Article, the emphasis on trying to prevent conflict and maintain Peace and Friendship is a main focus on this Treaty. Here that the British will brilliantly showcase friendship and protection for the Indians is a main point, in hopes of "burying hostilities in Oblivion with the Hatchet" and trying to maintain a standing truce.

While the Wabanaki/Mi'kmaq cede sovereignty over dispute-resolution to the British courts (and by extension gain rights within British Common Law), by virtue of the wording in this sentence, they have not ceded their absolute sovereignty.

I conclude this since they continue to use a separate legal term "Indian" for the Mi'kmaq rather than describing them as "British Subjects".

This further suggests, as with the 1725 treaty, that from the British perspective the Wabanaki nations are entering into either a sub-sovereign status or a transnational status. I am hesistant to assert that the Wabanaki share this sentiment, but I am confident in asserting that the British do not consider them to be either British Subjects or a vassal nation.

Again, the British are now pledging to arm the Mi'kmaq as the French had done previously. Building upon their policy of replacing the French King in relations with Wabanaki.

Given that the Wabanaki are presumably willing to establish such a relationship would suggest a shift in their foreign policy as well.

Any nation which signs this treaty will gain the benefit of economic support from the British King. This was a role previously played by their amicable relationship with the French King, given that the missionary documents recorded such a practice.

This suggests a shift in British policy wherein they wish to become the "patron's" of the Indigenous nations while the Wabanaki appear to be more amenable to the British (whether willingly or by coercion).

Two things occur to me with this passage. Firstly, this is something the Mi'kmaq have actively asked for and the British have conceded ("It is agreed..." suggests that both parties have concluded this together to the benefit of the Mi'kmaq).

Secondly, this is a positive right for the Mi'kmaq and a restriction of British liberty. Mi'kmaw hunters and fishers are free to exercise their right to hunting and fishing throughout Mi'kma'ki and now the British are restricted from obstructing this practice. This was one of the primary disputes the Mi'kmaq had with the founding of Halifax overtop Kjipuktuk.

The language used here, as well as the implications of the clause itself, reinforces the notion that this treaty goes further than the previous.

Now these nations have the support and protection of the British King much as the British envisioned them having with the French in the past. It also suggests the foundations of a conditional alliance only possible with a firm foundation of peace and cooperation (ideally speaking of course).

The British invoke a concept from the Haudenosaunee and their Great Law of Peace. Without digressing too much, the Haudenosaunee first confederated by quite literally "burying their hatchets" and affirming a permanent state of peace between the 5 founding nations of the confederation.

I imagine the British, being traditional allies of the Haudenosaunee, are either invoking this concept or otherwise agreeing to the Wabanaki's invocation of it. This suggests something both deeper and grander than the wording used in the previous treaty of 1725.

While the overall language of this document suggests the submission of the Wabanaki, and thus suggests that they have lost the war to the British, the fact that the previous treaty is "Renewed, Reiterated, and forever Confirmed" might very well be a compromise from the British as well.

The justification for war given by the Wabanaki in July of 1721 mentions British violations of this treaty. Presuming that they either have no objections to the terms of this treaty or have otherwise amended them through the other terms of this treaty suggests to me that it is in the interests of the Wabanaki to renew this older treaty.

This phrase has appeared in both treaties. At first, I presumed this phrase to have come from either a Mi'kmaw or Wabanaki concept translated into English.

However, I reviewed the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and the Treaty of Paris (1763) to see if they used this term as well. It appears that they do so this is likely either a convention from Europe, or if it is Indigenous then this cultural exchange happened prior to these treaties.

Given how they're used in these two treaties between the British, French, and Spanish I'm led to believe that they do not imply a state of alliance but rather of peace or prolonged ceasefire.

The wording of the Mi'kmaw delegates indicates a distinction in governmet. Namely, the British delegate represents the British Monarch whose singular authority is carried through the office of the Crown.

In contrast, the Mi'kmaq are represented by Major Jean Baptiste Cope as well as other delegates who represent a more popular conception of sovereignty. It also suggests that the following in this document does not obrogate or otherwise annul their governmental system.

This suggests a state of either full or partial sovereignty maintained by the Mi'kmaq nation in the eyes of the British.

Unlike the other document this one takes a much harsher approach and suggests that the British believed that the indigenous groups were at fault.

As a further point of non aggression, setting boundaries is a part of this treaty, as the British are again hoping that within these lands and area's, that no one is to be brought to harm or interrupted in their lives. Notably, we also see the words "Quietly enter upon, improve and forever enjoy all" which appears to reaffirm at least in the British Mindset that the land within their holdings are in ways improved under their control which reaffirms the British Stance of ownership of these lands.

With the language used here, the Delegates seek to form a treaty of non aggression between each other, as ending the violence is necessary for peace. As mentioned this is a treaty to protect the British people and colonists, so making a treaty where both sides recognize that violence will not be tolerated is a necessary step.

The legal mechanisms mentioned here, i.e. the chiefs, public and solemn manner, ratification and confirmation etc, suggest again that the Wabanaki nations are considered as sovereign.

However, the terms of the treaty aforementioned appear to modify this sovereignty when operating within the territories of the British colonies. I am under the impression that the British, rather than the Wabanaki themselves, view this document as establishing a sub-sovereign and/or transnational status for the Wabanaki Confederacy.

"Reducing them to reason" would suggest that the Penobscot are obligated to engage with British enemies diplomatically as opposed to militarily.

This further suggests that the Wabanaki are not forming an alliance with the British, but establishing terms of peace for either co-existence or a hybrid co-sovereign/trans-national legal status within the British Kingdom and its colonies.

The fact that Wabanaki living in the lands claimed by the French suggest that the British conceived of the nations as primarily trans-national as opposed to merely sub-sovereign.

Regarding war and peace, the terms of this treaty apply internationally. While terms regarding commerce, economic rights, and freedom of mobility are covered domestically.

This appears to be a concession from the Wabanaki. The language suggests that the nations have surrendered their sovereignty over all dispute-resolution. It is now something regulated by the courts of the colonial authority and not by the Wabanaki councils alone.

Trade and Commerce are restricted by this treaty as they are to be regulated by the government of the Massachusetts colony alone (neither British Parliament nor the Wabanaki councils).

While this might seem to be a concession from the Wabanaki, it might also be a concession from the British or otherwise a compromise.

Previously, land could theoretically be purchased from Indigenous persons via private (unregulated or documented) exchanges with settlers. This would no longer be the case under this treaty, as all exchanges of land must be regulated by the colonial authorities.

This is where things get a bit more complicated. The Wabanaki nations are not British subjects, but they are living within lands in which the British Crown is sovereign. This suggests that the Wabanaki nations are considered either sub-sovereign or trans-national under British law.

Positive language provides them the rights to fish, hunt, and fowl along all lands still legally owned by them.

This suggests that Indigenous nations (or persons?) are legally allowed to sell their land and rights but also to enforce their right to use said land and rights if they have not sold them to settlers (or British subjects).

Positive language is used here to convey that the British subjects have a right to move freely within their legally-owned lands in the colonies. Negative language is used to restrict the Wabanki's nations freedom to disturb settler activity.

The fact that a concept of legally-owned lands exists would suggest that there can be such thing as land which is illegally-occupied by settlers.

Obligating the Wabanaki nations to neither confederate nor combine with nations hostile to the British is distinct from allying with the British. I am under the impression that this treaty obligates the Wabanaki to maintain neutrality if war breaks out against the British.

The wording used in this paragraph suggests that the Wabanaki nations are still conceived of as being separate and sovereign from the British Crown.

I believe this due to the decision of the authors to distinguish between the "several tribes" and the "Subjects of the Crown" as well as the framework of "Amity and Friendship with all the English". If they were becoming British subjects then there would be no need for this wording nor for this legal distinction.

The wording of "all captives" suggests both captives of the British and of the Wabanaki. This is likely a concession to the Wabanaki Confederacy from the British as European powers would traditionally hold hostages as ensurances of peace.

One of the reasons the Wabanaki entered this war was due to a hostage not being returned after payment was duly rendered (28 July 1721). The fact that the British do not repeat this policy suggests that they have conceded to a request from the Wabanaki.

While this might be secondary to our main topic, King George I (r. 1714-1727) is the first of the Hanoverian Kings of Britain.

Given that the Hanoverians are now ruling, Britain will experience a major shift in its policies: the nation will be consistently Protestant (not the case with the Stuart dynasty), parliament will take on a more central role, and they will become far more focused on Europe than their colonies. This will have an impact on their settlers in these colonies and will inform their policies with Indigenous nations of Turtle Island.

The British characterise the Wabanaki as being the party responsible for the war and suggest that they had previously been in the good graces of the British King.

This clause also suggests that the Wabanaki have acknowledged this responsibility and indicates that this acknowledgement is a condition of the treaty.

These Indigenous nations all compose members of the Wabanaki Confederacy and have been mentioned in documents from our previous modules.

-Penobscot (Penawahpskewi) live along their eponymous river and their land is situated in the colony of Maine. They are the western-most of these Wabanaki nations.

-Narridgewalk (Nanrantsouak) live along the Kennebec river and are to the North-East of the Penobscot nation. Their land is also situated in the colony of Maine.

-St. John's Indigenous live along the St. John's river in the colony of New Brunswick. Their endonym is Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) and are the nation with which John Gyles lived in captivity.

-Cape Sable Indigenous reside in the Mi'kmaw region of Kespukwitk (Western Nova Scotia) and are a subgroup of the Mi'kmaq nation. They are the eastern-most of these Indigenous nations.

Ausstieg Deutschlands aus dem UN-Migrationspakt

besser: ausstieg aus der UN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7D_SnySls0<br /> Coin Bureau – Who Controls The World?

7:02 die UN wird kontrolliert von den veto-mächten (frankreich, russland, china, USA, england)<br /> also deutschland ist nur eine kolonie der USA<br /> (dabei sollte deutschland eine kolonie von russland sein, weil russland ist viel näher…)

23:31 countries that have imposed sanctions on russia: USA, canada, germany, UK, australia, japan, …

This paragraph explains that the Mi'kmaq people were very open to the French settling in Port Royal, however they felt that the french are now starting to take over and it is effect the way of living for the Mi'Kmaq people people, they did not like that they wee being forced to take refuge on their own land.

I believe this showcases the idea that the Indigenous didn't mind the European settlement, and as a solid number of sources state cooperation between them was paramount to success. But when the Europeans started overstepping their boundaries and tried to take advantage of the Indigenous, that is when relations got much worse between them. And as we know the majority of treaties were made to benefit the Europeans and not the Indigenous.

The Mi'kmaw leaders are referring to the partition of Mi'kma'ki under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) by the British and French Crowns.

They are also asserting their opposition to this partition and the fact that the Mi'kmaq were not involved in these negotiations.

The Mi'kmaw leaders are beginning to use similar rhetoric as the Europeans in their land claims. By appealing to a God-given right, in Catholic terminology, they are actively contesting the European narrative using the coloniser's own internal logic.

This statement also appeals to a primordial event which the colonisers cannot adequately contest if they accept either providence or occassionalism as philosophical/theological concepts.

By saying "our savages" it shoes that Le Loutre believed that the french people were responsible for the Mi'kmaq people

The British do not appear to have any desire to recognise the claims to either sovereignty or land by the Mi'kmaq, Wabanaki, and their allies.

Given the geographic location of Halifax (Kjipuktuk) I would assume that the British are trying to isolate the Indigenous leaders and crush their resistance rather than negotiate with them in good faith.

Mr. Le Loutre, if not the French as a whole, recognises the sovereignty of the Mi'kmaq (presumably the Wabanaki Confederacy and their allies as well) and that their lands both used to cover considerably more territory and require more territory than what they are asking for.

Not only does this coalition of Indigenous nations consider themselves to be sovereign (de facto) and separate from the British and French they are actively seeking legal recognition as such by the British (de jure).

This territory which the Indigenous nations are asking for appears to again correspond to the territory claimed by the French in their map dated 1756 with the exception of the coast from Canceau to Antigonish (mostly the north-eastern quadrant of Eskikewa’kik).

This is all traditionally Mi'kma'ki lands which also happen to contain the most concentrated Acadian settlements on the mainland.

Presumably, the Indigenous nations have assembled a council without formal French presence which reinforces the notion that they consider themselves and de facto are sovereign nations.

Furthemore, the fact that the British make a distinction between French inhabitants who have sworn an oath of fealty and the Indigenous actors would suggest that the British share this position that the Indigenous nations are sovereign and separate nations from both themselves and the French Kingdom.

It appears that the British will consider any Acadians who take up arms against them as criminals (i.e. treason) rather than soldiers in an armed conflict.

The reference to an Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch suggests that the Acadians had at one point of time sworn an oath of fealty, unlike the Indigenous actors in this struggle.

Copequid (i.e. Cobequit/Cobeguit) appears to be a settlement listed both on the British and French maps and lays on the eastern coast of the Basin of Minas. It is listed as French on the French map and British on the British map.

This sentence seems to confirm my suspicions that it is presently controlled by the British since Mr. Hussey is described as its present commander according to Mr. Le Loutre.

I tried to find this fort on the maps in Module 1 but was unable to find it. So I googled "Fort Lawrence" and discovered that it is presently a rural community named after the fort in the isthmus between modern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (via Google Maps).

When I reviewed the maps in Module 1 using this geographic knowledge, I discovered that the British Map listed this fort as "usurped by the French" while the French Map listed them as "Forts Anglois" (English Forts).

Given that both of these maps were printed after this letter was written (1755 and 1756 respectively) I assume that the Fort is still controlled by the British.

Contrary to the assertions of the Wabanaki and Mi'kmaq in previous documents, Mr. Le Loutre is expressing the idea that the French are responsible for these Indigenous nations in the context of international law and diplomacy.

Mr. Le Loutre is here referring to British King George II (r. 1727-1760) and French King Louis XV (r. 1715-1774). Both succeeded to their respective thrones after the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and inherited the status quo (or successive contestations) of Mi'kma'ki/Acadie/Nova Scotia established by this treaty.

Again as brought on by my earlier point. Alcohol is an issue that the Natives have to deal with, and seems to be used to try and loosen lips and get the Indigenous into situations they as a community would desire not to.

Despite historical friendship with the French and cultural affinities (i.e. shared Catholicism and use of French as a lingua franca) the Abenaki assert that the French King, at no point in history, has had the right to transfer land on behalf of the Abenaki.

This asserts the following notion: that the Abenaki and other Indigenous French allies are sovereign and equal nations to the French Kingdom

I was unaware until this point that this letter was originally written in French but reviewing the preface seems to confirm this fact (the document is titled "Grand Captaine des Anglois" there).

This seems to reinforce the notion that there is a greater degree of fidelity and reciprocal relationships between the French and Abenaki than between the British and Abenaki at this period of history. Even if the Abenaki do not presently swear fealty to Louis XV.

I was under the impression that the Haudenosaunee, being traditionally allies of the British, were hostile to the Wabanaki Confederacy but this seems to refute my assumption.

These nations collectively cover most East Algonquin peoples living from Lake Ontario, through to Mi'kma'ki (albeit south of the St. Lawrence River).

These nations' traditional lands appear to correspond to the French claims along the southern bank of the St. Lawrence River contiguous with their claims in Acadie/Mi'kma'ki which are depicted on Lesson 1.2's French map "Carte de Possessions Françoises et Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane" (1756).

The author identifies the boundaries of the Abenaki nation as being the Kenibege/Kennebec river (separating them from the British-allied Haudenosaunee nation) and the Peggakki/Pigwaket River as well as the estuaries and islands which spring from this river.

The Abenaki also assert their right to regulate their border by commanding no Englishman to live within a league of the Peggakki River.

The author identifies the popular sovereignty of the entire Abenaki nation and their Christian Indigenous allies (presumably Catholic) and invokes it as the authority which legitimates their legal position in this letter.

Two things spring to mind from these sentences. Firstly, that these lands had never been permanently occupied by the British and the Wabanaki use this legal concept to justify their sovereingty. (i.e. de facto control and domestic sovereignty).

Secondly, a major difference is expressed by the Wabanaki in this text. They explicity deny swearing fealty to the King of France (Louis XV) which might very well be true even if they had sworn an oath of fealty to Louis XIV prior to 1715.

From my understanding, under French monarchical law subjects required a renewal of their oath of fealty upon the succession of each monarch. The office of the monarch was not considered a legal person in the way which this office is/was considered under British law at the time. The oath was not to the office of the French monarch but the monarch themselves.

Hence, the Wabanaki argue that they are not bound to the French monarchy even if they had sworn fealty to Louis XIV in the past. So the present King cannot justify the land transfer as he is not sovereign over the Wabanaki.

Appealing to European legal concepts, the Wabanaki argue that the peace treaty (Treaty of Utrecht 1713) protects their lands from annexation and asserts their sovereignty as an independent nation.

In this instance the Indigenous people, in this case the Mi'kmak who are rightfully writing a complaint about the English intrusion into the Native Territory. Specifically, how the English seem intent on taking away the Natives from these places running them out of places that the English claim are English Lands.

In this instance the Indigenous lived on these lands for a long time, much longer than the English and other Europeans, yet they are now being forced out by what can be perceived as invaders. In this instance, it does provide a motive for why the Indigenous would have issues with the English and capture the English Citizens/

This demonstrates Mi’kma’ki autonomy from the French crown. They are establishing themselves as their own council, able to make their own decisions in the face of their land being stolen at the hands of the British.

It appears as if the British had sent delegates to negotiate peace with the Mi'kmaq at Port Royal and that the nation had protected the delegates from harm.

The Mi'kmaw leaders also mention that they are characterised as if they were defying the entire world (i.e. everyone) which would suggest that the French are also expressing public dissatisfaction with the Mi'kmaq in British-controlled Mi'kma'ki.

Aldon has been taken by the French at an indeterminate time. These Mi'kmaw leaders make a point to both differentiate themselves from the French and to insist that neither themselves nor the French are involved in each other's decision-making or in determining each other's interests in the region.

Wishing for the lands to be freed from British occupation, they claim that their livelihood and ability to reside on their lands are endangered by British settlements.

As the preface indicates, they are speaking of Sipekne'katik 29 years prior to the establishment of Fort Halifax in Kjipuktuk by the British. This would suggest that displacement of Mi'kmaq by British settlement preceded the establishment of Halifax.

The Mi'kmaw leaders, Antoine and Pierre Couaret, predicate their argument similary to that of the Mi'kmaw leaders in Kjipuktuk.

Namely, the Mi'kmaq have inhabited these lands since time immemorial and that God has granted them this land.

While the English "I have only joy to see" suggests that the French are presently establishing forts on the Abenaki rivers, I was suspicious of this conclusion so I reviewed the archival letter.

The original French text uses the term, "Je n'aurais que...je ne mettrais guéres", whose verbs are in the conditional mood and not the indicative.

So the Abenaki are really saying that they "would have only joy" and "would hardly be concerned" if the French would only establish forts on their rivers like they had in Mi'kma'ki.

It is to be seen whether the French Crown commits to this request by the Abenaki.

The Abenaki leader appear to be genuinely Catholic and to share genuine fidelity to the French Crown. It is possible that the words are either distorted by the French transcribers, or that the speaker is appealing to the French King's religious convictions but I am of the opinion that these might be genuine sentiments.

The Abenaki here directly appeal to the French Crown for support in their struggle against the British and express their faith that the British are lying about the Treaty of Utrecht.

Not only are the Abenaki perturbed by the contested annexation of their land by the British, but also the notion that they require an oath of fealty to the George I (Protestant) rather than that already sworn to Louis XIV (Catholic) and the French Crown.

Port Royal is situated in the Mi'kmaw land of Kespukwitk and was formerly an Acadien-French settlement before being occupied and annexed by the English/British.

Given the Abenaki argument here, I would presume that their land was not occupied by the British during the War of the Spanish Succession. But it would appear that Mi'kmaq land was in fact occupied by the British during the war.

This suggests that the Abenaki have adopted Catholicism and have an active relationship with both the French Crown and the Gallican Church (i.e. French branch of the Catholic Church).

Based on the title, it would appear that this letter is written for the purpose of gaining the support of the French King (either Louis the XIV or XV depending on the month this was written) against the English/British (led by George I) who are apparently seizing the land of the Abenaki.

This seizure is likely due to the Treaty of Utrecht signed two years earlier (1713) and given the narrative in the text it seems that they were not informed by the French of this peace treaty but by the English.

Here the Covenant referring to that given by God to the Jews.

From a philosophical viewpoint, Reagan grew up in Dixon, Illinois a small town (surrounded by farmland) in North West-ish Illinois roughly on the border of the political borders of what Colin Woodard calls The Midlands and Greater Appalachia. He seems to have been a Midlander for the first half of his life, but obviously had an easy time moving to a more Greater Appalachia viewpoint when working for GE.

• Second great separation
  • Industrial Revolution
    • The early enclosure movement during the 1600s
      • separated people into farmers and non-farmers
      • https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fabout%2Fliving-heritage%2Ftransformingsociety%2Ftowncountry%2Flandscape%2Foverview%2Fenclosingland%2F&group=vnpq69nW
    • Prior to the enclosures, land was held in common for public use, not owned by individuals.
    • The rise of capitalism also occurred during this time.
      • Adam Smith wrote his landmark book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776.
      • Land was privatized so the most efficient use of land could be determined
        • by market competition rather than
        • community consensus.
      • Labor then also had to be ​“commodified,” or bought and sold,
        • so non-farmers could work for wages and buy food and the other necessities of life they had been getting from the land.
      • With reliance on working for wages, buying, and selling
        • the necessity for personal relationships were diminished.
      • With the diminished necessity for personal relationships,
        • the social cohesion within families, communities and society began to diminish as well.
    • The persistence of chronic poverty and malnutrition, even during times of tremendous economic growth and individual wealth, are direct consequences of a growing sense of disconnectedness from each other that was nourished by the industrial era of economic development.

https://app.thebrain.com/brains/3d80058c-14d8-5361-0b61-a061f89baf87/thoughts/7de7af80-11c8-358c-93ed-22b575eb95d9/notes

Friends of the Link 2023-03-01

—Ronald Reagan

Adam Smith thought that there were two sides to us, one side is our concern for SELF, that gets what it needs to survive but the other side is our empathic side for OTHERS, we cares for the welfare of others. His economic design theory distilled into THE WEALTH OF NATIONS was based on the assumption that these two would act in a balanced way.

There are also two other important and related variables at play that combine with Whybrow's findings:

1. Death Denialism (Ernest Becker) A growing meaning crisis in the world due to the waning influence of Christianity and significant misinterpretation of most religions as an immortality project emerging from the psychological denial of death

John Vervaeke's Meaning Crisis: https://www.meaningcrisis.co/all-transcripts/

Glenn Hughes writes about Becker and Denial of Death: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fernestbecker.org%2Flecture-6-denial%2F&group=world

1. Illusion of Immediacy of Experience Jay L. Garfield explains how philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Chandrakurti and Dogen have taught us to beware of the illusion of the immediacy of experience that consists of two major ways in which we mistaken conventional, relative reality for intrinsic reality: perceptual faculty illusions and cognitive faculty illusions. https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FHRuOEfnqV6g%2F&group=world

This is a finding from the UN's 2015 assembly.

Guarascio, F. (2022, January 14). Poorer nations reject over 100 mln COVID-19 vaccine doses as many near expiry. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/more-than-100-million-covid-19-vaccines-rejected-by-poorer-nations-dec-unicef-2022-01-13/

Progressive International. (2021, November 29). BREAKING: 2.5 million nurses from 28 countries have filed for a UN investigation of human rights violations by the EU, UK, Switzerland, Norway, and Singapore for blocking the waiver on Covid-19 vaccine patents as new strains proliferate: Http://covid19criminals.exposed https://t.co/Rj37RqDA4J [Tweet]. @ProgIntl. https://twitter.com/ProgIntl/status/1465202919687348227

This seems to be getting at the "personal Jesus" and personal faith that Colin Woodard mentions as well.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG

https://danallosso.substack.com/p/help-me-find-world-history-textbooks

Dan Allosso is curious to look at the history of how history is taught.

The history of teaching history is a fascinating topic and is an interesting way for cultural anthropologists to look at how we look at ourselves as well as to reveal subtle ideas about who we want to become.

This is particularly interesting with respect to teaching cultural identity and its relationship to nationalism.

One could look at the history of Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War to see how the South continued its cultural split from the North (or in more subtle subsections from Colin Woodard's American Nations thesis) to see how this has played out. This could also be compared to the current culture wars taking place with the rise of nationalism within the American political right and the Southern evangelicals which has come to a fervor with the rise of Donald J. Trump.

Other examples are the major shifts in nationalism after the "long 19th century" which resulted in World War I and World War II and Germany's national identity post WWII.

Padma, T. V. (2021). COVID vaccines to reach poorest countries in 2023—Despite recent pledges. Nature, 595(7867), 342–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01762-w

If we mutually exclusively split America into these four classifications, what would be the proportion of people within each?

What do the overlaps of these four groups look like with respect to Colin Woodard's eleven American Nations?

Before even starting, I'm curious what these four parts will be? Will they map in some way onto Colin Woodard's eleven American Nations

This seems reminiscent of the reminder to recall that ancient writers actually lived and eventually quit living. C. Matthewes quote perhaps about Augustine?

What effect does the personal relationship with Christ play in this catastrophe? (the one described in American Nations). I need to return to this thesis and examine it closer.

Brazil’s Pandemic Is a “Biological Fukushima” That Threatens the Entire Planet—Scientific American. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2021, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazils-pandemic-is-a-lsquo-biological-fukushima-rsquo-that-threatens-the-entire-planet/

Pandemic may reverse human development for first time in 30 years, UN says. (n.d.). World Economic Forum. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/pandemic-international-human-deveolpment-covid19-coronavirus/

COVID-19 Crisis Fuels Hostility against Foreigners. COVID-19 and the Labor Market. (n.d.). IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/dp13250/

Fatehkia, M., Tingzon, I., Orden, A., Sy, S., Sekara, V., Garcia-Herranz, M., & Weber, I. (2020). Mapping socioeconomic indicators using social media advertising data. EPJ Data Science, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00235-w

United Nations (2020, June 9). We need to act now to avoid the worst impacts of our efforts to control the pandemic. https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/we-need-act-now-avoid-worst-impacts-our-efforts-control-pandemic

Nations, U. (n.d.). We need to act now to avoid the worst impacts of our efforts to control the pandemic. United Nations; United Nations. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/we-need-act-now-avoid-worst-impacts-our-efforts-control-pandemic

Earnshaw, V. A., & Katz, I. T. (2020). Educate, Amplify, and Focus to Address COVID-19 Misinformation. JAMA Health Forum, 1(4), e200460–e200460. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0460

Swan, B. W. (n.d.). State report: Russian, Chinese and Iranian disinformation narratives echo one another. POLITICO. Retrieved April 22, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/russia-china-iran-disinformation-coronavirus-state-department-193107

This is a fantastic case study to explore CIL issues with.

Advocates for strong nation states as a way to elevate the human conditions. Argues that the UN post-WWII has been continually rigged against America. Smaller nations have broken the international system.

• Uses the word "sovereignty" 22 times — Voyant textual analysis.
• Nationalist document.

Advocates for strong nation states as a way to elevate the human conditions. Argues that the UN post-WWII has been continually rigged against America. Smaller nations have broken the international system.

• Uses the word "sovereignty" 22 times — Voyant textual analysis.
• Nationalist document.

The Yukon Territory is a small, western Canadian territory with a rich history, including records dating back to 10,000 years go. In the Yukon Territory, there are a variety of languages spoken including Vunut Gwitchin, Han, Tutchone, Northern Tutchone, Southern Tutchone, Upper Tanana, Kaska, Tagish, and Tlingit (Pinnacle Travel). Another small ethnic group that is French-speaking remains from those who migrated from the Gold Rush. In the late 1700s, the Yukon became a major trading area between Tlingit and other Yukon people (Government of Yukon). In 1852, Tlingit traders pushed the Hudson Bay Company out of the Yukon in 1852. In 1886, a trading post was established at the Stewart River and coarse gold was found at the Fortymile River and the Yukon Gold Rush began. In 1898, the Yukon Territory Act was passed to consider the Yukon as separate from the North-West Territories, with Dawson City as its capital. In 1972, Elijah Smith and some of the Yukon First Nations tribe went to Ottawa seeking land claims. The final agreement, The Umbrella Agreement, was signed in 1993 and was signed by the governments of Canada and Yukon and the Council of Yukon First Nations. The Yukon First Nations’ final land claim was complete in 1995. In 2003, the Devolution Transfer Agreement was passed, allowing the Yukon government more control over provincial programming and powers.

References: "Government of Yukon." History - Government of Yukon- Government of Yukon. January 5, 2015. Accessed May 07, 2017. http://www.gov.yk.ca/aboutyukon/history.html.

"Pinnacle Marketing Management Inc." Pinnacle Travel. Accessed May 07, 2017. https://www.pinnacle-travel.org/yukon-culture-history/.

The Great Slave Lake was found in 1771 by Samuel Hearne (Ernst). Many others passed through during the Klondike Gold Rush in 1896-1899, but the region surrounding the Great Slave Lake remained greatly unoccupied. In 1930, a radioactive uranium mineral called pitchblende, or uraninite, was discovered on the shore of the Great Slave Lake and incentivized colonizers. 1934, gold was discovered on Yellowknife Bay, which led to a Yellowknife community settlement. Today, additional communities in this region include Hay River, Fort Resolution, Fort Providence, and Behchoko. The Great Slave Lake is the fifth largest lake is North America and is part of the Mackenzie River System. The Lake gets its name from a tribe of Native Americans called Slavery First Nations (National Geographic). This tribe fished for sustenance and did not explore farther than their immediate surroundings. Their neighbors, the Cree, thought the tribe was weak and often called them awonak, which means slaves. Explorer Peter Pond named the lake the Slave Lake in 1785 and then the Great Slave Lake in 1790. The Lake is known for its variety of types of fish, including trout, pike, and Arctic grayling. The Great Slave Lake is covered in snow and ice 8 months out of the year. The Great Slave Lake region is also the home to the largest intact forest in the world, the Boreal Forest, which contains evergreens, bogs, shallow lakes, and ponds (Pala). This Great Slave Lake cove is the habitat for caribou, waterfowl, beavers, and many fish species.

Ernst, Chloe. "The History and Sites of Great Slave Lake: A Visitor's Guide.” PlanetWare.com. Accessed April 06, 2017. http://www.planetware.com/northwest-territories/great-slave-lake-cdn-nt-ntgs.htm.

National Geographic, February 2002, 1. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (accessed April 5, 2017). http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=6f8f4a3faafd67e66fa023866730b0a1&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=bucknell_it&tabID=T003&docId=A83374988&type=retrieve&PDFRange=%5B%5D&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0.

Pala, Christopher. "Forests forever. (Forest conservation in Canada)." Earth Island Journal, September 22, 2010.

Commonly referred to throughout history as “metis”, “mixed-bloods”, or “michif”, this group of individuals represented a population thought to be half- European and half- First Nation Peoples. More specifically, “Metis” is used to refer to the population that has mixed French Canadian and Cree ancestry living in Canada. Within the context of our studies, however, the term is commonly used in the Mackenzie District to mean mixed blood of European and First Nations ancestry. They have been plagued by lack of opportunity given to them by the Canadian government, or lack of representation. However, before the turn of the 19th century they famously fought for their recognition in the “North West Rebellion”, a stand for their community that took place in 1885. Their struggle to gain proper recognition as a people under the Canadian government is one that represents a common theme in the topics relevant in this article. Much of Metis identity comes from identifying as those who were “dispossessed by Canadian government actions from 1870 on”. The number of Metis in Canada has been estimated to be around 750,000. The 1970s saw groups of Metis from the Dakotas, Canada, Idaho and Montana gather to commemorate their shared heritage and pride. The Metis have been referred to as the “Forgotten People”. The history of these people actually started when male members of the Hudson’s Bay Company married and had Children with Cree women. These children were the first to be identified as Metis. Their history is a long and powerful one, dating back to the 1670s.

If you select the link to the Manitoba Metis Federation website in the reference section below, you can view the Metis Flag.

Jacqueline Peterson and Jennifer S.H. Brown, The New Peoples: Being and Becoming Metis in North America (Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba Press, 1985) https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q8qervZ6nakC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=metis&ots=eb9wxWIATY&sig=ejlZFKH4ZkQVeLLk1hd9fCwdvtY#v=onepage&q=metis&f=false

Manitoba Metis Federation. “History of the Metis Flag.” Last modified 2017. http://www.mmf.mb.ca/history_of_the_metis_flag.php