#as is the act of farming their animals & livestock bc they very much believe in being good to nature

[bronzebtch]

when rhea really likes someone, she would almost always ask them to go on a hunt with her. but like. its always an excuse so she could hunt for you and gut the game in front of you and clean it for you and prepare it for you and—

[rebgarof]

“Indigenous food sovereignty was decimated by design: the separation of people from their historic food systems and land is not a side effect of colonialism but a function of it. Canada’s formation is a history of legislating First Nations, Inuit, and Métis out of existence, including by erasing Indigenous food cultures: the Gradual Civilization Act, the banning of potlatch ceremonies, the signing of treaties that exchanged life-sustaining hunting grounds for farmland, livestock, and pitiful amounts of cash. All of it was designed with the purpose of elimination through assimilation.

(...)

While Indigenous food systems were being dismantled, elsewhere in the world food itself began to change. From the early eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century, industrial production, preservation science, manufacturing, marketing, and the hospitality industries transformed the way people ate. This is the period that gave us the refrigerator and the gas stove, food-safety regulations, canning, and frozen dinners. At this same transformative moment in history, Canada’s government engaged in a concentrated effort to eradicate Indigenous peoples and their cultures, including by squelching language, self-government, land use, and hunting rights. Indigenous food practices were excluded as most of the world’s food practices modernized and commercialized (not always for the better), and most Indigenous people were forced to rely on processed and expensive provisions.

Indigenous food sovereignty was decimated by design. It was not a side effect of colonialism but a function of it.

Over a century later, food insecurity—inadequate access to affordable, safe, nutritious food, resulting in negative physical-, mental-, and social-health outcomes—is far more common among Indigenous people throughout Canada than in the population of the country overall. Forced to transition over generations to a Western diet, which many Indigenous communities cannot necessarily access or afford, First Nations people, Inuit, and Métis people suffer higher rates of diabetes and cardiovascular-health issues as a result. The social and spiritual losses are far more difficult to measure.

(..)

“Nutrition North was doomed to fail from the beginning because it’s a non-Indigenous solution to a very complex issue,” says Joseph LeBlanc, who is Odawa from Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron and the former executive director of the Social Planning Council of Sudbury. “Nutrition North was explicitly a market-based approach. What they did, however, was further entrench an exploitative market relationship that corporations have in Northern communities. It reinforced the existing food system as if it were the only food system.”

LeBlanc says non-Indigenous Canadians are looking at the problem of food insecurity through the wrong lens. “How do we make food cheaper at the store? Where do you get food in an urban context?” he asks, rhetorically. “That’s very much a Western economic approach.” Even the presumption that there is a standard diet for all Canadians is fundamentally colonialist, says Teri Morrow, a dietitian at Six Nations of the Grand River in southwestern Ontario. “Canadians ate the way we ate when they got here,” says Morrow. “Hunters up north don’t need lettuce. There’s roots and tubers, there’s lichen—a ton of things.”

(...)

In many parts of Canada, Indigenous people’s ability to hunt, fish, forage, and farm is compromised by the degradation of land and water through industrial-scale resource extraction. In other places—often described as “protected”—such as national parks, these activities are frequently prohibited by law. The formation of Canada’s parks, seen by many non-Indigenous people as wildlife refuges where nature is safe from human threat, has long disrupted Indigenous food sovereignty. Canada’s first national park, Banff, “was predicated on the displacement of diverse Indigenous communities,” says Courtney Mason, author of Spirits of the Rockies: Reasserting an Indigenous Presence in Banff National Park. “This was facilitated by park management and supported by the police, missionaries, and tourism entrepreneurs. In part, they were attempting to curb Indigenous subsistence practices of hunting, fishing and gathering, in order to protect emerging sport hunting and fishing tourism economies operating inside the park.” Further development of Canadian parks was largely modelled after Banff, incurring similar displacement and cultural damage. It remains illegal for Indigenous people to hunt in about half of the country’s national parks.

Even where it is possible to hunt, with a few exceptions, wild meat cannot be sold in restaurants, butcher shops, or grocery stores in Canada. This means hunters cannot earn a living from their efforts, and many Indigenous foods cannot be shared in retail or commercial settings beyond reserves or special, limited-licence events. Many coastal communities face a similar challenge as, even while living off of seal meat, the European Union’s ban on seal imports has made it impossible for families to earn revenue from the sale of skins.

(...)

One of the problems, says LeBlanc, is that Canada knows many people depend on the land for their food, yet governments manage our natural resources as if they didn’t exist: “The [Ministry of Natural Resources] doesn’t have the capacity to manage the forest properly, and I don’t believe the Crown has the will to make that happen. Because the interest is in getting money from stumpage.” Genuine transformation, LeBlanc believes, will only come from challenging the seemingly unassailable prioritization of resource extraction. “There’s an opportunity to manage food sources. This would mean a shift in the paradigm from extraction of timber and minerals to the inclusion of food sources.”

(...)

LeBlanc says there is a legal basis for implementing more food-oriented policies. This means, for instance, reforming training for forest-management authorities to include Indigenous world views and rights. In forested areas like the Fraser River canyon there is an alternative, which he and many others advocate for: community-based forestry, in which land is managed by and for the people who live on it. “Community forestry is a movement that started in Nepal in the seventies,” says Susan Mulkey, communications manager for the BC Community Forest Association, “where the government recognized that degraded land, the best stewards of that, the best people to bring it back to productivity, are the communities themselves.” The idea, LeBlanc says, isn’t to reject industry outright but to take an approach that incorporates economic and employment interests without excluding the use of land as a food source.

In the late 1990s, BC began a pilot project for community-based forest management; it now includes over sixty community forests that produce just under 3 percent of the provincial timber harvest. In 2011, following decades of protracted conflict with the government and logging companies, the Xaxli’p reached an interim compromise: the Xaxli’p Community Forest Corporation they had established a few years earlier was given a twenty-five-year tenure over the trees in most, but not all, of their territory. (Prior to that agreement, the province had given a number of companies the right to harvest timber on Xaxli’p land.) Restoring the land and creating a sustainable economy are goals that are built into XCFC‘s corporate mission. The plan is to eventually harvest timber in sustainable quantities and using sustainable methods.

“Our long-term goal is that our community forest will be self-sufficient,” says Nora Billy, a member of the XCFC board of directors. The XCFC plans to balance the conservation mandate with value-added timber harvesting, manufacturing products for sale in addition to selling raw logs. The first step has been ecocultural restoration. This includes promoting moose habitat by removing planted pine trees (to encourage the growth of willow and other wetland shrubs), leaving old fallen trees intact for animal habitat, purifying water, and thinning forest areas that have grown too dense due to post-logging replanting and government fire-suppression techniques. Moose and deer have begun returning to the area.

(...)

LeBlanc says that, over the years, he’s been told by many non-Indigenous people that it is simply too late to save what has been lost. For him, this is both untrue and a device used to perpetuate damage to the land and Indigenous peoples. “It’s a tidy, nice bow to put on top of 100 years of colonialism to say, ‘Our job’s pretty well done—all you need to do is let go of your romantic ideals and we can get on with civilizing you.'

But LeBlanc, Wolfrey, Shawana, members of the Xaxli’p Community Forest Corporation, Morrow, Bell, and many others are not letting go. “The fundamental element of resurgence, resistance, whatever you want to call it, that’s happening in Indigenous youth in particular, is challenging that directly,” says LeBlanc. “I know individuals who do live a traditional lifestyle, in remote communities. They’re not waving a flag around or flying down to Toronto for meetings or answering phone calls from reporters or academics. They’re busy completely entrenched in a traditional lifestyle. And they’re some of the happiest, most food-secure people out there.”

On a policy level, says LeBlanc, decisions about the use of land still exclude Indigenous world views. “There’s a transition that needs to happen in Canada at some point. Ultimately, all of our legislators and decision makers are products of our school system. And they’ve all been conditioned to think of us in a particular light . . . . We haven’t even gotten to the point where we can have a truthful conversation about land.””

[chojimaru]

@officer--dimples

First thing first. Making a new post because of how insanely long the other one is. I apologize for not replying sooner. I will attempt to be civil with you here because you obviously put a lot of work writing this.I also won’t reply to every single topic but I will try to cover what the main points are.

First we must define Assault Rifle. An Assault rifle is capable of automatic fire, uses detachable magazines, uses an intermediate cartridge, and is used in the act of assault. Assault is a verb. A comb can be an assault comb if you attack someone with it. Intermediate cartridges are rather low powered. The rounds themselves are pretty bad at killing Human sized animals because of this. The M16 when first used in the Vietnam was hated by soldiers because it would poke holes in the enemy while the M14(which used a much stronger, heavier bullet) would kill a man in 1 or 2 shots(more on this later). Automatic weapons are extremely regulated in America. More regulated than all guns in Australia and Britain and most countries you are likely to see cited for their gun crime rates. Unpaid parking tickets, unpaid child support, a pending trial, a divorce, and even being put on trial and found innocent are all possible ways to be kept from owning an Automatic weapon. Many things can result in your weapon being taken away. You must always have the physical license from the ATF with the gun at all times. You can’t have it in the car in the parking lot when you are at the gun range. The ATF can inspect your house and take it away for no reason. You must have an approved gun dealer in your will who will take possession and usually destroy the gun when you die. You must destroy the gun under certain circumstances. An AR 15 is not an assault rifle. An M4 or M16 used in combat is.

Let me explain why the AR 15 is one of the best guns for self defense.

This is 5.45 bullet that has been cut in half. It’s not the bullet commonly used in AR 15s but it operates in the same manner. It has a hollow cavity in the tip. The basic function is that this bullet travels very quickly and the tip breaks as soon as it makes contact with anything. Whether it be a wall, an animal, a human, or a tree branch that tip caves in when it makes contact and the bullets flips like a kicked American football. This decreases the energy of the projectile by a lot. This means that a 5.56 or 5.45 are the best rounds to use in neighborhoods, apartment buildings, or in homes with children around. This bullet will hit drywall and be less deadly. A 9mm pistol bullet can go through an entire house. a .30-30 bullet commonly used to hunt deer can go through multiple apartments. You could hit a home intruder and a shotgun slug can go through him and into the neighbors house.

On the topic of hunting. AR 15s chambered in .300 Blackout are the premier way to dispatch our wild boar invasion in farm lands. Pigs can destroy millions of dollars in property, crops, and livestock damage. They are an enormous problem. AR15s are needed because they are light, quick, and not too bulky so a farmer can have one in his truck and use it as soon as he sees boars. AR15s in 5.56 are great for hunting other animals like skunks, raccoons, wolves, coyotes, and rabbits to name a few.

Moving on to the topic of fear. Fear is an emotion and is therefore relative. Right now I am feeling cold. If someone in a colder area like Alaska or Norway is standing in front of a warm fire place covered in thick blankets while a blizzard rages outside does it mean it is warmer in Alaska than in Texas? Of course not, it just means I need to put some socks on. You feel safe, good for you. I do too, good for me. I am not living in fear, I am hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. I have canned goods because I once went with limited food for weeks during and after a hurricane. I drive a car with lots of safety features because I know people who died in car crashes. I brush my teeth because I know people in their 30s with dentures. I have a gun because my people were unarmed when they were murdered by their government. It’s one of the reasons my family came to this country and it’s one of the reasons those problems did not.

Regulations are great. I used the regulation that says food products need to be labeled with expiration dates today. I would have had some bad milk and been sick for hours without that. I don’t mind a government, but I do mind a lot of government. The police do not prevent crime, they arrest criminals after they have committed crimes. Look up what the average length of time it takes for police to arrive on scene in your area. The answer, no matter, what is too long. In the time it takes you for to pull out your phone, dial, the operator to respond, and the police to drive is less than it takes for a human to be beaten, kidnapped, murdered. 5 minutes may be ok if you call them because someone was spray painting a wall, but that is not ok if your friend is bleeding out. Literally in this recent case that no doubt inspired OPs post, an armed policeman stood outside of the school mere feet from the shooter and did nothing as people died. Your government does not care about you and they do not protect you. They try, but they fail too.

“Please educate me, if I get this wrong: you want to defend yourself with a gun. Why is that? Because you fear that one could attack you with the gun they are allowed to carry, right? You want a gun bc others have a gun”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUk3HEqjf8c

This is Dutch MMA fighter Alistair Overeem. He is 6′3 and in his prime was 3% body fat and weighed 280 pounds. He is famous for his ability to get knocked out in devastating fashion. He’s a good fighter despite this, but hitting him in the right spot just puts him to sleep. Him and his brother(a less skilled, less fit mma fighter who has more knockout losses than some UFC champs have fights) once beat the living shit out 5 security guards armed with clubs. The five guards needed emergency care, Allistair hurt his hand because he punched a guy in the face and cut himself with his victims teeth. In a different incident he pushed a lady and with one hand sent her flying and she was injured after hitting some poles. Would you fight this man? I know it’s a extreme, he’s bigger and more well trained than 99.99% of the world but a guy even half as big and half as skilled and with twice the ability to make a punch would you say with confidence you could fight him off? Let’s think of someone else. Do you have an elderly person in your life or a very young person? A 5 year old nephew, a 70 year old grandparent? Not to mention any disabled people in your life. Maybe even people who are currently sick with the common cold or have a stubbed toe or pregnant or dealing with period cramps right now. Do you think you could beat Allistair Overeem in a 1 to 1 fight? Do you think every single person you care about could beat him at any given moment? If a man that big and even a fraction as skilled came into your home would you be ok? Would the police respond in time? The answer is no because even if you managed to call the police before he was face to face with you he has choked people until they fainted or knocked them out in less than a minute despite them being his size, strength, nearly his level of skill, and fully prepared to fight him. On the opposite end of the spectrum, do you think you, barring any personal thoughts and restraints could stop him if he attacked you and you had a weapon whether it be a gun or a taser or pepper spray? Which would you pick? Should training martial arts, taking steroids, and lifting weights become illegal?

“Let me tell you a secret: if the other isn’t allowed to own a gun, you don’t need a gun” Allowed is the keyword. Allowed is very different than has or owns or uses. In America we are a free people. My government doesn’t allow me to do things. We allow the government to do things. We allow the government to tax us, we allow the government to operate, and we allow the government to arrest and punish people who do certain actions. You have defined what freedom means to you. That is not freedom but you are free to think that way and to desire your life be that way.

On the topic of race and countries of origin and all that let me just go on a little tangent here. My Dad’s side is white, Norwegian mostly but I have a great grandma who’s ancestors were in the original US Navy under the great John Paul Jones. The cannons on said ship were privately owned as were all the small arms. They even had a gun that shot multiple bullets in a row. It wasn’t as advanced as an M60 machine gun but it was considerably faster than a musket. These people knew inventions were coming that would do things more effectively. Whether it be better ships, better guns, or better way of communication. You believe the change of technology should effect the right to bear arms. Do you believe the government should restrict speech? Do you believe people should be incarcerate for speech? If so, what kind of speech? Do you think it would be ok if in 20 years you holding that opinion became illegal and that put you in jail?

Finally let’s talk about guns and swimming pools and cars. Swimming is a recreational activity, exercise, sport, and therapy. Cars are transportation, sport, and hobbies. Guns are also used in sports, hobbies, exercise, recreational activities, and therapy. Earlier this month a friend told me a child in her neighborhood(a three year old) fell into a swimming pool and drowned. Last year a guy in a truck ran over and killed a lot of people in London. Last week a guy with a gun killed a lot of students at a school and at that same event a policeman with a gun stood outside without confronting him. Should we attach floaties to every child? Should we outlaw trucks? Should we outlaw guns? Sorry for any spelling errors.