#neither settler nor native

[steveyockey]

Mahmood Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities (2020)

[serpentface]

The liwe and uraña, the megafauna of the Yutreiya archipelago (a large volcanic island chain near the center of the White Sea, homeland to the qilik-elowey Ulelilwa peoples). These are the two largest native land animals found in these islands, standing about waist high on a human.

The liwe is a flightless bird and the top land-based predator to be found here. Their ancestors were predatory birds who came to occupy niches as land based predators (with some members of the family specializing into insectivorous or partially herbivorous roles). Their wing are entirely vestigial, though retain some use in steering while at chase and in courtship displays- pairs will stand chest to chest and shake their wings at each other, and males will rapidly flap their tiny wings in continued display while mating, which is notably silly looking.

They act primarily as ambush hunters, as they have neither the speed nor stamina to capture a healthy adult uraña in an outright chase. Pairs mate for life and hunt cooperatively, with one typically driving prey to where the other waits in ambush. When hunting large prey, they typically attempt to injure the prey by slashing with their sharp beaks and kill with a crushing/piercing bite to the throat. Smaller prey is kicked and trampled until it can be dispatched with a bite.

The uraña has a superficially deerlike appearance, but is actually a highly derived lagomorph that has specialized in cursorial grazing and browsing niches. Their ancestors were likely hares (or harelike animals) who distributed through parts of the White Sea via rafting events and over land bridges during periods of lower sea levels. They have entirely lost the hopping gait of their ancestors and run like deer, but retain some recognizably hare-like traits. Males competing for access to mates (and females competing for herd dominance) will stand on their hind legs and box each other with their hoof-like claws. They give birth to precocial young (usually two at a time) who can stand and run shortly after birth.

They live in fission-fusion herds of up to 200 (though generally less) individuals for protection against predators. A herd at large is mixed sex, though most interactions outside of the breeding season are homosocial. Females and their young form bands within the interior of the herd, and will drive out adolescent males, while adult and adolescent males form bands that patrol the outside of the herd and watch for predators.

Females maintain strong dominance hierarchies within their circles, maintained with ritualistic displays and brief bouts of boxing. Male bands do not have strong dominance hierarchies, though they compete heavily during the breeding season. Male uraña have two distinct morphs in terms of size and reproductive behavior- larger, higher testosterone males attract and defend harems during the breeding season, and will spend these months tirelessly chasing off competitors, stealing from rivals, and attempting to prevent females from straying, all while barely eating. Smaller, lower testosterone males spend more of their energy courting singular females and/or wooing them out of their harems via shows of strength in boxing matches, attempting to mate with as many as possible during the breeding season without monopolizing access or picking fights with their larger counterparts. Harem males monopolize most of the breeding, but the yearly strain of defending large groups of females often results them having shorter lifespans (or being picked off by predators in a weakened state post-breeding season). Boxing males expend far less energy in the breeding season, and as such often live long enough to sire many offspring throughout their lives. As such, both strategies are reproductively successful and result in/reinforce this distinct morphology.

Liwe were part of a larger family of flightless birds once found on these islands, but the unintentional introduction of rats by the first Ulelilwa settlers contributed to the demise of most of this group (as well as a great variety of flying birds). Liwe eggs are too large and thick shelled for most rats to consume, and they have survived and thrived while the rest of their relatives are extinct on all but the most isolated of islands.

There also used to be a much larger species of uraña (about the size of a key deer). These were the largest animals on the islands and had no natural predators (save for liwe occasionally taking their young). Their population was already under pressure or locally extinct in many islands due to decreasing landmass in rising sea levels, and was fully driven extinct by its grazing lands converted to the raising of crops and ant-farming by Ulelilwa settlers. The smaller uraña occupy more generalist niches and adapted well to these pressures, with most of their populations not only surviving but exploding in size with the gradual extinction of their larger relatives.

(slightly outdated) size ref

[marxism-transgenderism]

The fugitive slave clause required [by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787] in each new state constitution secured their right to hold enslaved people as chattel property and to recover this property if enslaved individuals sought to obtain freedom by moving to northern free states. At the same time, article 6 of the Ordinance theoretically prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, stating, “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory,” creating a clear North-South divide over the issue of the expansion of slavery in the Trans-Appalachian West. This regional distinction regarding slavery proved to be less sharp than the Ordinance implied. Arthur St. Clair, the first governor appointed to the Northwest Territory, made it known publicly that he regarded the elimination of slavery in the region as aspirational, a law that would only be fully implemented at some unspecified date.[...] Slavery survived in similar fashion, and even expanded in the southern tier of the Northwest Territory. Not only had French habitants in the Illinois country held enslaved laborers, but once it was formed as a territory, Illinois became home to a large slaveholding southern diaspora seeking affordable western land.[...] Indiana, like Illinois, had a large enslaved population held by families whose residence in the region predated the existence of the United States. These influential citizens also used their newly established territorial legislature to adapt laws that effectively transformed enslaved persons into indentured servants or they created “rental contracts” that similarly codified and regulated the involuntary servitude of enslaved Black persons either resident or brought into the Indiana Territory. In both Illinois and Indiana, federal officials allowed planters and merchants to manipulate and control the legal conventions regarding slavery and involuntary servitude because their presence in newly formed territories gave the United States political power in a region of the Northwest that had been dominated by independent Native nations willing to resist U.S. expansion. The federal government and territorial officials prioritized the recruitment of a settler population, particularly wealthy individuals whose estates included the enslaved, as a counterweight to the political and economic power of Native villages in the newly organized territories. Allowing for a flexible interpretation of antislavery laws not only enticed economically powerful settlers but also enhanced a regional economy that was not tied to the fur trade and Native hunters. The ultimate goal of the political project envisioned by the Northwest Ordinance was the dispossession and displacement of the Native population, and this project occasionally required the inclusion of slave labor within the legal regime of an ostensibly free state.

— Michael John Witgen, Seeing Red: Indigenous Land, American Expansion, and the Political Economy of Plunder in North America (my emphasis)

[myemuisemo]

The further we get into The Hound of the Baskervilles in Letters from Watson -- now being up to chapter 3 -- the more I envision James Mortimer being played by Timothy Hutton. This is not good news, since it's Timothy Hutton as Nate Ford in Leverage. Is Mortimer trying to con Sherlock Holmes?

Mortimer keeps talking up Baskerville Hall as deadly, when we know of only two Baskervilles who've died there. The Hugo who wrote the manuscript got the story passed down from his grandfather. Neither they nor he died of the hound (3 generations). If we assume an average of 35 years per generation from 1742 to the narrative in 1889, another 3-4 heirs did not die by hound.

Mortimer is overselling that hound. “The original hound was material enough to tug a man's throat out, and yet he was diabolical as well.” How do we know this? Did he have tags on his collar giving Satan's address?

Mortimer delayed long enough that the only hard evidence is what he recounts.

So now we have two more Baskerville heirs:

Rodger, the black sheep, supposedly died in South America, where he was likely attracted by the prospect of getting rich mining silver.

Henry, the heir, has been farming in Canada.

Henry likely took up a homestead in western Canada under the Dominion Lands Act, passed in 1872. The government of Canada solicited mass immigration to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories (then including Albert and Saskatchewan) by offering, for only a small registration fee, 160 acres to anyone who would improve it. Unlike the U.S. Homestead Act, a settler who succeeded with one plot could register for a second one.

Land for settlement had been ceded by the First Nations peoples under the earliest of the Numbered Treaties, which sounds tidy and respectful until we reflect that the treaties were the culmination of long years of wiping out the indigenous population with famine and disease. A weakened population ceded valuable territory in return for assistance and then the terms of the treaties were not honored in full.

This leaves Henry as the least directly blood-stained -- and probably most hard-working -- of the globe-trotting Baskervilles. Colonialism has this enormous ill effect: behavior that, in close-up, would seem entirely virtuous (hard work! initiative! willingness to take risks!) is built on the suffering of the indigenous peoples. (Yes, I think about this as an American, also how the California history I was taught as a tot did its best to erase our local native peoples. I can both enjoy the courage of my immigrant ancestors, most of whom were themselves oppressed minorities in Europe or the Middle East, and critique policies.)

In that vein, I found this meme on Threads the other night.

Even that ordnance map that Holmes uses -- which is darn cool -- has its roots in power relations. The first big mapping project in the UK, dating from the mid-18th century -- was to develop accurate maps of Scotland in order to mop up the remains of the Jacobite rebellions and suppress further dissent.

That said, ordnance maps offer an amazing level of detail. The National Library of Scotland offers access to ordnance maps of the era that Holmes would have been using here. It's the kind of mapping that shows the location of every building and all sorts of tiny lanes.

Now I want to go play with maps, if only to distract myself from wondering how much the smoky atmosphere of Holmes' flat is damaging his Stradivarius.

[nothorses]

i see you've reblogged a very weird and racist post about what it means to be a "settler" and i would encourage you to engage more deeply with Native & Indigenous thinkers! "settler" isn't just like a static inborn unchangeable biological fact. it's a specific relationship to land, nature, governance, Indigenous people, etc

(For other people's reference, this is the post in question)

I 100% agree with you that the definition of "settler" the article is discussing is not the like, actual definition- particularly in the context of indigenous/native American people (at least that I've read anything by). I think it's a shitty and inherently flawed understanding of the word, it doesn't serve anyone, and my understanding of the article is that it's critiquing the same thing: a critically, and perhaps intentionally, flawed understanding of a word that has a very different meaning. (They use phrasing like "under this definition of the word" or similar whenever they mention it, and allude to the fact that actual indigenous/native American folks are being left out of the conversation).

I think the article could have (and should have) been clearer about this point, because it feels like it's never very direct in this, and that absolutely does leave room for some people to interpret this as "the concept of 'settlers' is antisemitic".

What I'm picking up on could just be nothing, but, imo, it's really not absent from the author's intent. It seems more like they were focused on the issue being discussed ("the way this term is being misused hurts Jewish people, please think about the flaws in your understanding of this word") and didn't think it was as important to define a more accurate understanding of the word where it might invite a debate about semantics- or maybe because they don't have a solid enough alternative understanding to provide.

I don't think it's entirely fair to jump from "author critiques flawed understanding of settlers" to "author argues that the concept of settlers is inherently harmful", and I think the perspective they're offering is a very real and important one to hear out. I'll add that I've personally seen this misunderstanding of "settler" trotted out in legitimately harmful ways, in real life; I very recently had a supervisor use this definition of "settler" in staff training, multiple times, in a program that prides itself on cultivating real connections with local tribes to inform their curriculum, to imply that everyone's ultimate goal should be to leave this land and go back to our "ancestral homelands" (when presented with the idea that some people just don't have any way of knowing where that is, she suggested "dreaming about your past lives" and, failing that, shrooms).

But like, I can also very much see where they're not actually making the effort to actively defend the very real concept underneath the common misunderstanding of it, and how that can- and probably has- caused harm. And I'm sorry if you or anyone else has felt that harm.

I also invite disagreement and discussion here, and I recognize that my perspective is likely to have blind spots given I'm neither Jewish nor indigenous.

[inariedwards]

[copied from One Democratic State Initiative]

When asked what would happen to Israelis after the liberation of Palestine, one might be tempted to answer they simply don't care—that it's their problem, not ours. And indeed, the moral priority revolves around the needs of the oppressed, not of those enjoying colonial privileges. Yet, the Palestinian liberation movement has historically had an answer to that question—and we should not fail to emphasize that answer today.

Even since before the Nakba, Palestinians proposed the establishment of a single Palestinian state for all of its citizens, with no discrimination on the basis of religion. After the Nakba, the Palestinian National Charter and the charters of all main factions explicitly adopted this democratic vision. Today, leaders of Hamas and other resistance factions repeat that same stance. Why is this important?

1. Because we need to have a clear political vision The state in a liberated Palestine will need to handle the affairs of the people living there, including citizenship, education, freedom of religion and land restitution. Not caring about these questions essentially means not caring about having a Palestinian state and about what it would do. Historically, successful decolonization movements have always had a vision of what liberation meant, including for previous settlers.

2. Because we need to decolonize As a colonial project, Zionism politicizes identities and views humans as either Jewish or non-Jewish, granting Israeli citizenship, rights and privileges to the former at the expense of the latter. A project that cares only about Palestinians and disregards Israelis seems more of a reflection of Zionism than the antithesis to it. The antithesis to Zionism is a project that does not deal with individuals on the basis of their identity.

3. Because we need to maintain our moral superiority over Zionism Millions throughout the world side with Palestine, not because we are militarily or economically mightier than our occupiers, but because our cause is morally just. There is no reason to hide that a free Palestine will tolerate neither colonialism nor discrimination on the basis of religion.

4. Because we deserve to know what tomorrow's Palestine will look like Our land has been occupied and our people ethnically cleansed for over 75 years. And we've also had our share of compromises in the name of "liberation" and "solutions". We have the collective right to determine the future we envision for our country, and to voice that vision.

5. Because we need to debunk the hasbara Zionism has hasbara'd millions of Israelis into believing that Jews are safe nowhere and that Palestinians in particular are bloodthirsty terrorists that are eager to shed Jewish blood. Confronting this lie is part of our liberation struggle. A vision for a democratic, non-chauvinistic Palestine that welcomes non-Palestinians willing to integrate its society is a valuable tool.

6. Because we need Israelis to take sides with our liberation struggle Zionism deals with Jews as a single, homogeneous, monolithic group. We fight Zionism by refusing to adopt its approach—including by refusing to adopt a blanket "we don't care" approach. Clarifying our vision to today's enemies will give them something Zionism claimed they never had: a choice. And some will make the right one.

For all these reasons, the Palestinian liberation movement has historically provided clear answers regarding the fate of Israelis after liberation—without losing sight of the priority, which is the right of the natives to self-determination in their land. Today, the One Democratic State Initiative is working on establishing this discourse more solidly. We call on Palestinians and on Israeli allies to join this fight to reclaim the narrative, and on allies worldwide to support us in these efforts.

Share this content on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook.

[redgoldsparks]

August Reading and Reviews by Maia Kobabe

I post my reviews throughout the month on Storygraph and Goodreads, and do roundups here and on patreon. Reviews below the cut.

Assassin’s Apprentice by Robin Hobb read by Paul Boehmer 

This was my third re-read of this book, and when looking back over my book list I realized that my first read was 20 years ago!! I believe I picked it up in a used bookstore based solely on the cover art, which is a bit funny in retrospect when looking at it, because it is very beautiful but not very accurate to the character descriptions in the book. Regardless, I'm glad it caught my eye because this remains one of my favorite fantasy novels of all time. It's a coming of age story interwoven with court intrigue, magic, politics, and a deep compassion for common folk, the kind of people who fish, farm, care for horses and dogs, who cook and clean around the edges of the lives of royals and nobles. This story follows Fitz, a bastard son of the royal family, from age 6 to about 14, as he learns and grows into what he might eventually become: a catalyst of immense change. The writing in this series is so good, so grounded in real lived details, neither fast nor slow paced but unrolling at a natural speed that draws the reader along and into this rich and complicated world.

Grace Needs Space by Benjamin A Wilgus and Rii Abrego

Grace lives on a space station with one of her moms, while the other is gone for long stretches of time working on a cargo ship. Grace longs to travel, to visit planets, to see trees and lakes. Finally she gets the chance to go with her space fairing mom on a trip to the inhabited moon Titan, but her mom barely has time for her, constantly delaying her requests for games, attention, or adventure. So Grace sets out on her own for the day on Titan with a group of kids she met the day before. This gentle family drama is resolved when engineering mom swoops in to remind Grace and cargo ship mom that working together and being honest is the best way to move forward. I loved the artwork; all of the characters had a cuddly quality and the space ship and station interiors were simple but very effect, especially with the lovely colors.

Witching Hour by Beth Fuller 

A short, beautifully drawn comic about a teen's journey into fairyland and what can be found there.

The Monster Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson 

The first book in this series was devastating, with enough content warnings and upsetting aspects that I was genuinely unsure if I'd go back for more. But my book club decided to continue with the series, so here we are. This installment is challenging in a different way. Originally, this book was just the first part of a 360,000 word manuscript that had to get chopped into two volumes. It suffers from middle-book problems; no distinct beginning and no conclusive ending. The majority of the story is a long drawn out chase scene, which is a story structure that works for some but not so well for me. I remain deeply impressed by the breadth of Seth Dickinson's world building. I enjoyed the new POV characters, especially the nonbinary Tau-Indi, who lives in a society that recognizes a third gender. Dickinson can craft a devastating turn of phrase, designed with precision to emotionally injure the reader. But overall I struggled with the pacing of this book, and the constant violence and confusion.

To Shape a Dragon’s Breath by Moniquill Blackgoose 

A wonderful new alternate-history series with dragons! Anequs lives with her family on the island of Masquapaug; her people have lived through the colonization and invasion of settlers from a white, Norse culture who now have cities, trains, universities, and industry on the mainland of the north-eastern part of America, though countries have different names in this story. Also, every region has its own dragons, though Anequs' people haven't seen one of their native dragons in 200 years, since the Great Dying. When Anequs finds a dragon's egg she initially plans to raise it at home, with all of the songs, dances, and stories of her community. But the Anglish have laws about dragons and one of them is that all future dragoneers must train at an academy; if they don't learn to control their dragon's breath, which can break things down to their elemental parts, the dragon will be killed. This is a very smart and thoughtful alternate history. I loved the indigenous lens, and the fact that Anequs sees through the bullshit rules of her school and doesn't let her self worth be judged by an outside culture. If I have one complain it's that the book had too many made up words; I'm fine with the fact nearly every place had two or three different names, but I didn't need made up names for the periodic table of elements. But I'm still very interested in reading the sequel and to see where this story goes!

Liberated: The Radical Art and Life of Claude Cahun by Kaz Rowe

Claude Cahun lived at the crossroads of masculine and feminine, of artist and activist, of blessed and cursed by the circumstances and time period they were born into. Rowe weaves together historical photos, direct quotes, and lyrical imagery to tell the tale of this brave queer icon to great effect. It's short but very informative, and really filled out my understanding of someone I previously only knew from a few fandom photos that circulate on tumblr. I had the opportunity to blurb this book; look forward to it's release in September 2023!

The Infinity Particle by Wendy Xu 

A beautifully drawn soft romance set in a utopian Mars colony, a community full of parks, public transit, and cute helpful robots. Clem booked a one way ticket from Earth to work under her intellectual idol, Dr Lin, who works on AI. Clem is initially wowed by her scientist boss, and intregued by her humanoid AI assistant, Kye. But soon the cracks begin to show in Clem's new life- PTSD from an abusive person in her past has followed Clem to Mars; Dr Lin has an ugly temper and doesn't treat Kye as a being with thoughts and feelings; and Kye himself starts to glitch. The color palette of soft reds and blues and the CLAMP manga aesthetic charmed me, as did the hopeful vision of biological and synthetic beings living in harmony.

The Last Session Vol 1: Roll for Initiative by Jasmine Walls, Dozerdraws, and Micah Myers 

When a group of five teens met in their high school's GSA and formed an impromptu D&D group, none of them suspected the game would last for more than four years! Now in college, balancing jobs, internships, partners, and moves, they have gathered again to play the very end of their oldest campaign. With a hitch: the DM wants to add a new person to the party. The art in this volume is excellent, strong character designs, clean page layouts, and beautiful coloring all support a story of friendship and fantasy.

Royal Assassin by Robin Hobb read by Paul Boehmer 

This is my second or third read of this book, but my first since high school. It's not as well paced as book one- sections in the middle definitely drag, and a few of the dynamics of central relationships feel repetitive especially after the wonderful unfolding of the first book. It also only covers about two years of FitzChivalry's life, as opposed to the eight years in book one. But it's still exciting, and the last third has more twists and turns that many books fit into their entire narrative. I'm so invested in this world and these characters, and immediately started book three because I want to know what happens!

[the-owl-house-takes]

To the anon who stated that the “Puritans aren’t racist because they did not do slavery & were kind.” (this is not an exact quote but rather a paraphrasing of what anon state) The racist subtext of Emperor Belos do not come from his hatred towards witches and demons, but rather historical context.

I feel obligated to remind you of the atrocities that were done towards the Indigenous people at the hands of Puritans. Captured Indigenous people were often gifted as servants - often for life. Which is a more sugarcoated way of saying they were a slave. Not only were their lives and land stolen, but they also had to deal with the Puritans trying to purge them of their culture and their own beliefs for the sake of theirs - often through pillaging and war. Most notable of these Puritans was John Winthrop the very first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who was puritan and as expected - very racist in his policies. William Bradford the second governor of the Plymouth Colony comes to mind as well.

Of course this wasn’t exclusive to the puritans, but it is important to acknowledge. While some consider them “kinder” than the rest I don’t believe that is a good way to put it as Puritanical beliefs are insulting at best and down right cultist at worse.

Their approach was best expressed by John Winthrop, who said, “As for the Natives in New England, they enclose no Land, neither have any settled habitation, nor any tame Cattle to improve the Land, and so have no other but a Naturall Right to those countries, so as if we leave them sufficient for their use, we may lawfully take the rest.” Or as the records of the Milford, Connecticut town records state, “the earth is the Lord’s…the earth is given to the Saints…[and] we are the Saints.” Many of the settlers agreed with William Bradford who maintained that the Indians were “savage people who are cruel, barbarous and most treacherous.”

The red text above is from this article. I would recommend giving it a read as it’s very informative and gives more insight for writing the environment the Wittebanes were surrounded by.

https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/National_History/Book%3A_United_States_History_to_1877_(Locks_et_al.)/04%3A_The_Establishment_of_English_Colonies_Before_1642_and_Their_Development_Through_the_Late_Seventeenth_Century/4.06%3A_The_Puritans_and_the_Indians

Also note I’m NOT trying to attack you original anon/gen 😭 I’m simply a history nut and somebody who likes to add complexities to villains to further understand their writing 🙏

- 💫 Perrius Anon (I am not living up to my name)

-

[mightyflamethrower]

At the nexus of most of America’s current crises, the diversity/equity/inclusion dogma can be found.

The southern border has been destroyed because the Democratic Party wanted the poor of the southern hemisphere to be counted in the census, to vote if possible in poorly audited mail-in elections, and to build upon constituencies that demand government help. Opposition to such cynicism and the de facto destruction of enforcement of U.S. immigration law is written off as “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.”

The military is short more than 40,000 soldiers. The Pentagon may fault youth gangs, drug use, or a tight labor market. But the real shortfall is mostly due inordinately to reluctant white males who have been smeared by some of the military elite as suspected “white supremacists,” despite dying at twice their demographics in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are now passing on joining up despite their families’ often multigenerational combat service.

The nexus between critical race theory and critical legal theory has been, inter alia, defunding the police, Soros-funded district attorneys exempting criminals from punishment, the legitimization of mass looting, squatters’ rights, and general lawlessness across big-city America.

The recent epidemic of anti-Semitism was in part birthed by woke/DEI faculty and students on elite campuses, who declared Hamas a victim of “white settler” victimizing Israel and thus contextualized their Jewish hatred by claiming that as “victims,” they cannot be bigots.

There is a historic, malevolent role of states adjudicating political purity, substituting racial, sex, class, and tribal criteria for meritocracy. They define success or failure not based on actual outcomes but on the degree of orthodox zealotry. Once governments enter that realm of the surreal, the result is always an utter disaster.

After a series of disastrous military catastrophes in 1941 and 1942, Soviet strongman and arch-communist Joseph Stalin ended the Soviet commissar system in October 1942. He reversed course to give absolute tactical authority to his ground commanders rather than to the communist overseers, as was customary.

Stalin really had no choice since Marxist-Leninist ideology overriding military logic and efficacy had ensured that the Soviet Union was surprised by a massive Nazi invasion in June 1941. The Russians in the first 12 months of war subsequently lost nearly 5 million in vast encirclements—largely because foolhardy, ideologically driven directives curtailed the generals’ operational control of the army. After the commissars were disbanded and commanders given greater autonomy, the landmark victory at Stalingrad followed, and with it, the rebound of the Red Army.

One reason why the dictator Napoleon ran wild in Europe for nearly 18 years was that his marshals of France were neither selected only by the old Bourbon standards of aristocratic birth and wealth nor by new ideological revolutionary criteria, but by more meritocratic means than those of his rival nations.

Mao’s decade-long cultural revolution (1966–76) ruined China. It was predicated on Maoist revolutionary dogma overruling economic, social, cultural, and military realities. An entire meritocracy was deemed corrupted by the West and reactionary—and thus either liquidated or rendered inert.

In their place, incompetent zealots competed to destroy all prior standards as “bourgeois” and “counter-revolutionary.” It is no surprise that the current “people’s liberation army,” for all its talk of communist dogma, does not function entirely on Mao’s principles.

Muammar Gaddafi wrecked Libya by reordering an once oil-rich nation on Gaddafi’s crackpot rules of his “Green Book.” At times, the unhinged ideologue, in lunatic fashion, required all Libyans to raise chickens or to destroy all the violins in the nation. I once asked a Libyan why the oil-rich country appeared to me utterly wrecked, and he answered, “We first hire our first cousins—and usually the worst.”

There were many reasons why the King-Cotton, slave-owning Old South lagged far behind the North in population, productivity, and infrastructure. But the chief factor was the capital and effort invested in the amoral as well as uneconomic institution of slavery.

After the Civil War, persistent segregationist ideology demanded vast amounts of time, labor, and money in defining race down to the “one drop” rule—while establishing a labyrinth of segregation laws and refusing to draw on the talents of millions of black citizens.

Yet here we are in 2024, ignoring the baleful past as the woke diversity/equity/inclusion commissars war on merit. Institutions from United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration to the Pentagon and elite universities have been reformulated in the post-George Floyd woke hysteria. And to the delight of competitors and enemies abroad, they are now using criteria other than merit to hire, promote, evaluate, and retain.

The greatest problem historically with hiring and promoting based on DEI-like dogma is that anti-meritocratic criteria mark the beginning, not the end, of eroding vital standards. If one does not qualify for a position or slot by accepted standards, then a series of further remedial interventions are needed to sustain the woke project, from providing exceptions and exemptions, changing rules and requirements, and misleading the nation that a more “diverse” math, or more “inclusive” engineering, or more “equity” in chemistry can supplant mastery of critical knowledge that transcends gender, race, or ideology.

But planes either fly or crash due to proper operation, not the appearance or politics of the operator. All soldiers either hit or miss targets, and engineers either make bridges that stand or collapse on the basis of mastering ancient scientific canons and acquired skills, training, and aptitude that have nothing to do with superficial appearance, or tribal affinities, or religion, or doctrine.

The common denominator of critical theories, from critical legal theory to critical social theory, is toxic nihilism, which claims there are no absolute standards, only arbitrary rules and regulations set up by a privileged, powerful class to exploit “the other.” Yet, not punishing looting has nothing to do with race or class, but everything with corroding timeless deterrence that always has and always will prevent the bullying strong from preying on the weak and vulnerable.

Defunding the police sent a message to any criminally minded that in a cost-to-benefit risk assessment, the odds were now on the side of the criminal not being caught for his crimes—and so crime soared and the vulnerable of the inner city became easy prey.

Another danger of DEI is the subordination of the individual to the collective. We are currently witnessing an epidemic of DEI racism in which commissars talk nonstop of white supremacy/rage/privilege without any notion of enormous differences among 230 million individual Polish-, Greek-, Dutch-, Basque-, or Armenian-Americans, or the class, political, and cultural abyss that separates those in Martha’s Vineyard from their antitheses in East Palestine, Ohio.

Moreover, what is “whiteness” in an increasingly intermarried and multiracial society? Oddly, something akin to the old one-drop rules of the South is now updated to determine victims and victimizers—to the point of absurdity. Who is white—someone one half-Irish, one half Mexican—who is black—someone one quarter Jamaican, three-quarters German? To find answers, DEI czars must look to paradigms of the racist past for answers.

Moreover, once any group is exempted and not held to collective standards by virtue of its superficial appearance, then the nation naturally witnesses an increase in racism and bigotry—on the theory that it is not racist to racially stigmatize a supposedly “racist” collective. And we are already seeing an uptake in racially motivated interracial violence as criminals interpret the trickle-down theory of reparatory justice as providing exemption for opportunistic violence.

Throughout history, it has always been the most mediocre and opportunistic would-be commissars that appear to come forth when meritocracy vanishes. If there was not a Harvard President and plagiarist like Claudine Gay to trumpet and leverage her DEI credentials, she would have to be invented. If there was not a brilliant, non-DEI economist like Roland Fryer to be hounded and punished by her, he would have to be invented.

The DEI conglomerate has little idea of the landmines it is planting daily by reducing differences in talent, character, and morality into a boring blueprint of racial stereotypes. Punctuality is now “white time” and supposedly pernicious. The SAT, designed to give the less privileged a meritocratic pathway to college admissions, is deemed racist and either discarded or warped.

In its absence, universities are quietly now “reimaging” their curriculum to make it more “relevant to today’s students” and, of course, “more inclusive and more diverse.” Translated from the language of Oceania, that means after admitting tens of thousands to the nation’s elite schools who did not meet the universities’ own prior standards that they themselves once established and apprehensive about terminating such students, higher education is now euphemistically lowering the work load in classes, introducing new less rigorous classes, and inflating grades. In their virtue-signaling, they have little clue that inevitably their once prized and supposedly prestigious degrees will be rendered less valued as employers discover a Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton BA or BS is not a guarantee of academic excellence or mastery of vital skill sets.

Toxic tribalism is also, unfortunately, like nuclear proliferation. Once one group goes full tribal, others may as well, if for no reason than their own self-survival in a balkanized, Hobbesian world of bellum omnium contra omnes. If our popular culture is to be defined by the racist hosts of The View, or the racist anchorwoman Joy Reid, or members of the Congressman “Squad,” or entire studies departments in our universities that constantly bleat out the racialist mantra, then logically one of two developments will follow.

One, so-called whites in minority-majority states like California will copy the tribal affinities of others that transcend their class and cultural differences, again in response to other blocs that do the same for careerist advantage and perceived survival. Or two, racism will be redefined empirically so that any careerist elites who espouse ad nauseam racial chauvinism—on the assurance they cannot be deemed racists—will be discredited and exposed for what they’ve become, and thus the content of our character will triumph over the color of our skin.

Finally, do we ever ask how a country of immigrants like the United States—vastly smaller than India and China, less materially rich than the vast expanse of Russia, without the strategic geography of the Middle East, or without the long investment and infrastructure of Europe—emerged out of nowhere to dominate the world economically, financially, militarily, and educationally for nearly two centuries?

The answer is easy: it was the most meritocratic land of opportunity in the world, where millions emigrated (legally) on the assurance that their class, politics, religion, ethnicity, and yes, race, would be far less a drawback than anywhere else in the world.

The degree to which the U.S. survives DEI depends on either how quickly it is discarded or whether America’s existential enemies in the Middle East, China, Russia, and Iran have even worse DEI-anti-meritocratic criteria of their own in hiring, promotion, and admissions—whether defined by institutionalized hatred of the West, or loyalty oaths to the communist party, or demonstrable obsequiousness to the Putin regime, or lethal religious intolerance.

Unfortunately, our illiberal enemies, China especially, at least in matters of money and arms, are now emulating the meritocracy of the old America. Meanwhile, we are hellbent on following their former destructive habits of using politics instead of merit to staff our universities, government, corporations, and military.

Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy and simply make empirical decisions to stop printing money, deter enemies abroad, enforce our laws, punish criminals, secure the border, reboot the military, regain energy independence, and judge citizens on their character and talent and not their appearance and politics—at least if it is not already too late.

[alanshemper]

In 1862's 'Rome and Jerusalem,' perhaps the earliest Zionist text, Moses Hess asked France to "help the Jews to found colonies which may extend from Suez to Jerusalem and from the banks of the Jordan to the coast of the Mediterranean." 2/

In late August 1898, the Second Zionist Congress established the Jewish Colonial Trust, the financial arm of the World Zionist Organization and the first official Zionist bank. In 1902, the Anglo-Palestine Company Ltd. was founded as a subsidiary of the Jewish Colonial Trust. 3/

In 1902, Theodor Herzl, father of political Zionism, begged Cecil Rhodes to support the Zionist project and facilitate Jewish settlement of Palestine. Zionism was in Britain's imperial interest, Herzl suggested, "Because it is something colonial." 4/

Revisionist Zionist leader Vladmir Jabotinsky, who founded and led the Irgun militia, wrote explicitly in his 1923 Zionist manifesto, "The Iron Wall," that "Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or it falls by the question of armed force." 5/

Jabotinsky also wrote, "Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population," and that it was "necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs." 6/

One of the leading Zionist organizations supporting the Yishuv (Jewish settlers) in Mandatory Palestine was the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, established in 1924. (It was originally founded in 1891 as the Jewish Colonization Association.) 7/

The Jewish Agency, formed in 1929 by the 16th Zionist Congress, was (and is still) tasked with increasing Jewish immigration to Palestine. Its fundraising arm originally operated under the auspices of World Zionist Organization's aptly-named "Colonization Department." 8/

On October 5, 1937, David Ben-Gurion - later Israel's first prime minister - sent a letter to his son Amos in which he wrote that "Palestine...contains vast colonization potential which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of need) to exploit." 9/

In mid-1947, the Jewish Agency presented its position to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. It declared "industrial development in Palestine" was "part of...the migration of industry from the old industrial countries to colonial or semi-colonial territories." 10/

During the presentation, Chaim Weizmann-later Israel's 1st president-stated, "As compared with the result of the colonizing activities of other peoples, our impact on the Arabs has not produced very much worse results than what has been produced by others in other countries." 11/

Moshe Shertok-Israel's 2nd prime minister-boasted of Zionism to the UNSCOP, saying "it will not be easy to find an instance in the history of colonization where a large scale settlement scheme has been conducted with so much respect for the interests of existing population." 12/

Clearly, Zionism's colonial nature was explicit from the outset and was leveraged as a selling point to gain European support. When colonialism began to lose legitimacy, the term was retired.

So don't ever claim that "we Zionists never called ourselves colonialists."

13/END

In 1891 leading Zionist thinker Asher Ginsburg (Ahad Ha'am) wrote that "when the life of our people in Palestine will develop to such an extent as to push out, to a small or large extent, the indigenous population of the country, then not easily will they give up their place." 2/

In 1898, Theodor Herzl recognized that, in order to establish a "Jewish state" in Palestine, the inconvenient indigenous population would have to be removed. “We shall try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian Arab] population (i.e. Arab) across the border," he wrote. 3/

Israel Zangwill, British leader of the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO), wrote in 1904 of "a difficulty from which the Zionist dare not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it." It was that "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants." 4/

So what was his solution? "We must be prepared...to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did."

Similarly, Chaim Weizmann referred to Palestinians as "the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." 5/

his 1926 address to Nat'l Conference of the United Palestine Appeal in Boston, Weizmann said Palestinians "are in the country, and have been there for ages. We are the newcomers and have to become part and parcel of the country. We are planting a new people in the country. 6/

In 1929, early Labor Zionist intellectual Berl Katznelson declared, "Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest," admitting that "it is by no chance that I use military terms when speaking of settlement." 7/

In 1930, Menachem Usshishkin, a powerful early pioneer of Zionism and leading member of the Jewish National Fund, stated, "If there are other inhabitants there [in Palestine], they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land." 8/

in 1936, Ussishkin commented, "Now the [Palestinian] Arabs do not want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land...because this country belongs to us not to them." 9/

In 1936, another leading Zionist, Arthur Ruppin, who led colonization efforts through the Jewish National Fund, declared, "On every site where we purchase land and where we settle people, the present cultivators will inevitably be dispossessed." 10/

In June 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote to Jewish Agency head Moshe Shertok, "Were I an Arab...I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly, and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule." 11/

Ben-Gurion told the 20th Zionist Congress in August 1937, "New Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab peasantry," adding, "Jewish power in the country...will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale." 12/

At the November 21, 1937 meeting of Jewish Agency's Transfer Committee, Yosef Weitz, Land Department chief at the Jewish National Fund, boasted that "transfer" not only "diminish[es] the Arab population," but also "release[s] it for Jewish inhabitants." 13/

In 1938, Ben-Gurion reaffirmed these sentiments: "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. Politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down." 14/

At the same time, Ussishkin insisted, "We cannot start the Jewish state with...half the population being Arab...Such a state cannot survive even half an hour." Regarding the forcible ethnic cleansing of over sixty thousand Palestinian families, he added: "It is most moral." 15/

Ruppin agreed: "I do not believe in the transfer of individuals. I believe in the transfer of entire villages." He also wrote, "Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine...We are bound in each case...to remove the peasants who cultivate the land." 16/

Moshe Shertok, Jewish Agency chief and later Israel's second prime minister, said, "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it." 17/

On March 20, 1941, the Jewish Agency's Yosef Weitz wrote, "The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer." 18/

In 1941, Weitzmann told Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador to England, that "if half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews could be put in their place. That, of course, would be a first installment; what might happen afterwards [would be] a matter for history." 19/

In a 1941 memorandum entitled "Outlines of the Zionist Policy", Ben-Gurion recognized that "the majority of the Arabs could hardly be expected to leave voluntarily," noting, "Complete transfer without compulsion – and ruthless compulsion, at that – is hardly imaginable." 20/

Founder and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress Nahum Goldmann recalled Ben-Gurion saying in 1956, "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country." 21/

In 1969, Moshe Dayan declared, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." 22/

Again, Zionism is a colonial ideology that explicitly relies on the forceful removal of the native population from its homeland. To live in peace with those you have displaced, dispossessed & disenfranchised, you must guarantee equal rights for all. 23/END

[arkipelagic]

On the topic of Indigenous Peoples

In the Philippines, “Indigenous Peoples” is a political identity wherein indigeneity is less about one’s origins but more about one’s relationship with Spanish colonization and/or subordination to nearby sultanates; history of religion; and, most importantly, current marginalized status.

The Philippines is unlike the Americas in two ways:

It is not, as a whole,* a settler colony like the United States and Canada

It is not, as a whole, a mestizaje society like Mexico and Brazil

Instead, majority of postcolonial era Filipinos can still trace the bulk, if not the entirety, of their origins in what is now the Philippines. We are to varying degrees a mix of the First Sundaland Peoples who first settled in Southeast Asia and the later Austronesian-speaking immigrants from modern-day Taiwan. All natives of the Philippines are descended from these prehistoric populations. Centuries of back-to-back colonization and occupation from Spain, Britain, the United States, and Japan did very little to impact the overall genetic legacy of Filipinos aside from special enclaves of elite political European descendants (e.g. Ayala clan) and Chavacano creoles in Zamboanga. If anything, there are more Chinese Filipino mestizos than Eurasian and Japanese ones.

However, the Philippines being a native-majority country does not make just anyone Indigenous. In the Philippines, you are considered an Indigenous People (“IPs” for short; also “katutubo”) if yours is an ethnolinguistic group that is historically neither Christian nor Muslim. This makes majority of Filipinos non-Indigenous as they are either from Hispanicized or Islamized ethnic groups.** Even if you are someone practicing Christianity or Islam or any other religion of foreign origin now, as long as you come from a historically non-Christian and non-Muslim minority ethnic group you are still considered an IP.

*out of the three major Philippine islands, Mindanao is known for its Visayan settler colony

**including all but the Sama-Bajau

[utilitycaster]

So I am super behind on CR, just finished the M9 Reunited, so I don’t know about shipping or blorbos or what’s making the fandom eat itself currently, but I am not surprised by the gods as colonizers discourse that is apparently happening. I think it’s been building since the “Exandria: An Intimate History” video that CR put out on YouTube just before Calamity. The description of the gods arrival on Exandria and conflict with the titans could be read as colonizer behavior from the video if that’s what you wanted to see, especially if you didn’t have any other context.

Hi anon,

I'm not sure if there was intended to be a question in here, and I mean this kindly, but this is a discussion that does require knowledge of Campaign 3, and of the sources within the fandom from which this statement is coming, in order to participate meaningfully.

The question isn't really "how is it possible to see the gods as colonizers." It's the following questions for me, specifically:

Why does this discussion surface specifically at times when people either want to argue that the Prime Deities are bad (Calamity); or that unleashing an entity that could kill all the gods is a valid consideration (Campaign 3)?

Why does the discussion of colonialism in Exandria rarely occur over in-world colonialism among mortals that is still in many cases being perpetuated (eg: the Menagerie Coast was settled by Marquesians despite being populated by the Ki'Nau already; Tal'Dorei after the Calamity was settled by Issylrans who ultimately renamed the continent after a descendant of those settlers, despite Syngornian elves having been longtime residents of Gwessar - and indeed, often being characterized by the fandom as the oppressors; the Kryn Dynasty is currently engaging in colonialism and missionary work in Xhorhas)? Whitestone was settled by a shipwrecked group from Port Damali, led by the de Rolos, and until after Campaign 1 was a fairly remote and self-contained location; should we then treat Percy and Laudna as colonizers? Again, since the Ashari were originally guardians of the sealed primordials, are Keyleth and Orym perpetuating colonialism?

In this framework, the gods (Prime and Betrayer) are the colonizers and the primordials are the colonized:

Where do the mortals fit into this, as the creation of the gods, who did not ask to be made on a world that was already inhabited? Are they the children of the colonizers? Were they brought here against their will? Do they perpetuate the colonization? Given that the primordials will kill them if released, what is their responsibility?

What is the responsibility of the gods? Should they abandon the world entirely, leaving both the primordials and mortals with the mess they created (Betrayers)? Should they side with the mortals, who were being attacked by the primordials (Prime)? Because neither side really sides with the primordials in this narrative during the Schism; it's only during the Calamity that the Betrayers then decide to use the primordials against mortals, and the Betrayers do not actually hate the Prime deities (ie, their fellow colonizers in this framework).

In the specific question of Predathos: Predathos is also not native to Exandria, and was originally sealed by the alliance of all the surviving gods along with the primordials. Is the solution to this colonist metaphor unleashing a new intruder onto the world to kill the gods (both Betrayer and Prime), even though the colonized (primordials) opposed it the first time? Is the Ruby Vanguard arguing for the release of the colonized (primordials) or are they just claiming the world for mortals? Will killing the gods help the primordials?

So anyway my point here isn't "how could any one see this as a colonist narrative?"; it's "reducing this to a colonist narrative has extremely far-ranging implications that are not being explored nor critiqued, and it's deeply telling that this pretty much exclusively comes up as a convenient argument against the gods, and never about mortals."

[oldcrowshag]

pls share more abt Michigan/Great Lakes land work + craft? 🥺 Fellow pagan moving to Mich for college soon

Le Nain Rouge, The Red Devil of Detroit

Besides working with the land itself, one of the best ways for me to get to know a new place (and develop my craft) is by meeting its folklore. A housewarming gift to you from the land of haunted sea-lakes: one of my favorite urban legends from Michigan.

Detroit occupies the contemporary and ancestral homelands of the Ojibwe, Ottawa, and Potawatomi nations. They maintain a rich recounting of the land's history and it's quite possible this story comes to us from them through the lens of settlers, or that it was derived from colonial politics entirely. All the more reason for a witch to dissect it!

Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac founded the French outpost Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit ("of the Straits") in 1701, where at first he enjoyed great success. The legend goes that he encountered a fortune teller at a party (older sources tend to use outdated terminology to describe her, but modern researchers agree, for the sake of the legend, she was perhaps Native and certainly Othered). She warned Cadillac that he had a future with great potential, but that he was soon to encounter a red devil and that he should treat their interaction with care. Should he slight the devil he would lose all good fortune and have nothing left to give his descendents. Cadillac laughed off the warning and returned to the festivities, and I presume the fortune teller left to warn other white men of their folly.

Sure enough, on a warm evening soon after, Cadillac and his wife were on a stroll outside the fort when an imp of frightening appearance stepped into their path. Instead of doing anything else the commander beat the devil back with his cane, and it was said upon receiving these blows the devil disappeared with a cackle. Later in his story Cadillac would be ousted from Detroit and shipped to an outpost in Louisiana, and then later a French prison. Modern scholars say he "probably deserves to be ranked with the 'worst scoundrels ever to set foot in New France.'"

From then on, a sighting of the Red Devil became synonymous with ill tidings. He was seen before the Great Fire that burned the city to the ground. People claim to have seen him wandering the streets during the Detroit Rebellion of '67, one of the greatest insurrections in American history. They say he wore an obscene grin on his face. Before one of the worst ice storms in living memory utility workers saw him dancing on the power lines. Every blue moon there are whispers of encountering him on a dark street, or spotting his grin under the eaves of a dark house. He is the harbinger, neither the cause nor solution for a coming terror nobody can dam up.

The tides are turning for the red devil, as far as public relations go. Every year on the vernal equinox (or weekend of, for the drinking) the Marche du Nain Rouge takes over the Cass Corridor. It's a parade by the public, with costumes and dancing and floats. Some march to ward the devil off, while others are there in solidarity of an othered folk-character. It's one of the Detroit weird-isms I could talk about all day.

(courtesy of u/ParticularYak9967 on reddit)

Regardless, they march as proof that the Devil is in Detroit, and he's alive and well.

(I'm thinking of writing more posts centered around Michigan-based lore and craft, but if anyone else would be interested in more content like that it would be nice to hear 😊)

[dykeboi]

A little game of translation telephone. Original English edition, published French edition, my own English translation which I made without seeing the original. Birds of the World by Oliver Luther Austin.

English: The visitor to New Zealand who sees Kiwis in their native haunts today is fortunate. This is not because they are rare, but because they are so shy and retiring. They live in thick, swampy forests where they spend their days hidden in burrows or under spreading tree roots, and come out to forage only at night. But with luck, and in the "proper bush", as the New Zealanders call what little is left of the primeval kauri and tree fern forests, one may still here the shrill piping calls that long ago led the native Maoris to call them kiwis.

Roly-poly birds about the size of a large chicken, the Kiwis are the smallest of the primitive flightless birds. They differ from the other four families of living Ratites (birds with no keel on the breastbone) in so many anatomical features that their position in the avian family tree, other than close to its base, is uncertain. Their closest relatives seem to be the extinct Moas that shared New Zealand with them until about 700 years ago.

The three living species of Kiwis (two more are known from Pleistocene fossil deposits) are the only representatives of their family and order. They have dwindled in numbers over the past century. Part of their decline is attributable to the clearing of the New Zealand forests for agriculture, part to the introduction of stoats, weasels, opossums, dogs, and cats. Though early settlers hunted them for food, the Kiwis have since earned a warm place in the hearts of the New Zealanders and are now rigidly protected.

In appearance Kiwis are strangely unbirdlike, and seem to be all body, bill, and feet. Their short, stout legs are spaced so far apart that they run with an awkward rolling gait, like an ungainly mechanical toy. Their long, coarse plumage com- pletely hides their rudimentary 2-inch wings. They have neither wing nor tail plumes. Their contour feathers, whose lack of interlocking barbules gives them their hairlike effect, grow thickly all over the body except for a hidden bare patch on each side just under the ridiculous wings. Into this patch the kiwi tucks its head and bill when sleeping.

Kiwis are the only birds whose nostrils open at the very tip of the bill. They have a keen sense of smell, which most other birds lack, and apparently find the grubs and worms they eat mostly by odor. Their rather poor eyesight is com pensated for in part by long, hairy bristles at the base of their 6-inch bill. These are believed to have a tactile function.

Kiwis nest in underground burrows and, as in most ratites, the male does all the incubating. The chalky white eggs are enormous, about 5 inches long. They weigh almost a pound, practically one fourth of the female's body weight. The clutch is one, rarely two, eggs, which takes 75 to 80 days to hatch.

Probably no bird or animal on earth has become more symbolic of its homeland than the kiwi. The chief motif on the Dominion seal, it also appears on New Zealand coins and postage stamps. It is used as a trademark for textiles, shoe polish, flour, and a score of other New Zealand products. New Zealand overseas troops proudly call themselves Kiwis. Such sentiment is the kiwi's best insurance for surviving the drastic changes still being made in its environment.

Français: Il faut beaucoup de chance pour apercevoir des Kiwis sauvages dans leur milieu naturel. Non que les Kiwis soient rares, mais ils sont craintifs et se cachent. Ils vivent dans les forêts épaisses et marécageuses où ils passent la journée, dissimulés dans des terriers ou sous les racines rampantes des atbores, et ils ne sortent que la muit pour se nourrir. Mais il arrive d'entendre dans le "véritable fourré" ainsi les Néo Zélandais nomment-ils ce qui subsiste de la forêt primaire à kauris et à fougères arborescentes leus appel augu et flüté qui les fit appeler "Kiwis" par les Maoris.

Oiseaux rondelets, à peu près de la taille d'un gros poulet, les Kiwis sont les plus petits des Oiseaux primitifs inaptes an vol. lis différent des quatre autres familles actuelles de Ratites, Oiseaux dont le sternum est dépourvu de bréchet, par un si grand nombre de caractères anatomiques que dans l'arbre généalogique avien leur place serait située à la base. Leurs plus proches parents semblent être les Moas qui occupaient avec eux la Nouvelle-Zélande jusqu'au XV siècle environ.

Les 3 espèces actuelles de Kiwis (2 autres ont été retrouvées dans les dépôts fossiles du pléistocène) sont les seuls repré sentants de leur famille (Aptérygidés) et de leur ordre (Apté rygiformes). Leur nombre a diminué au cours du siècle der nier. Cette taréfaction est due en partie au défrichement des forêts de la Nouvelle-Zélande au bénéfice des cultures, en partie à l'introduction d'Hermines, de Belettes, d'Opossums, de Chiers et de Chats. Les premiers colons chassaient les Kiwis pour les manger mais, de nos jours, ces Oiseaux occupent dans le coeur des Néo-Zélandais une place privilégiée et sont l'objet d'une protection sévère.

A première vue, les Kiwis ont à peine l'air d'Oiseaux. Le bec et les pattes semblent plantés dans le corps et celles-ci, courtes et robustes, sont tellement écartées qu'ils tanguent en courant à la manière d'un jouet mécanique. Leur plumage long et grossier cache totalement leurs ailes radimentaires longues de 5 cm. Leurs ailes et leur queue sont dépourvues de plumes et le plumage dont ils sont couverts a l'aspect de poils en raison de l'absence de barbules entrecroisées, il est dense sur tout le corps à l'exception d'une plage dénudée de chaque côté, sous les moignons d'ailes. C'est là que le Kiwi rentre la tête et le bec lorsqu'il dort. Les Kiwis sont les seuls Oiseaux dont les narines s'ouvrent à l'extrémité du bec qui mesure 15 cm. Ils ont. Fodorat fin, contrairement à la plupart des Oiseaux, ce qui leur permet de découvrir les larves et les vers dont ils s'alimentent. Leur vue, assez faible, est compensée en partie par de longs poils raides qui exerceraient un rôle sensoriel et sont situés à la base de leur bec. Le nid du Kiwi est un terrier et, comme chez la plupart des Ratites, c'est le mâle qui couve. Les oeufs blancs, à sur face crayeuse, sont énormes (près de 15 cm). Ils pèsent envi ron une livre, soit un quart du poids de la femelle. La ponte se limite à un, rarement deux œufs, qui éclosent au bout de soixante-quinze à quatre-vingts jours.

Aucun Oiseau ou animal sur terre n'est davantage considéré comme le symbole de son pays que ne l'est le Kiwi. Celui-ci figure comme principal motif sur les armes de la Nouvelle- Zélande, il apparaît également sur sa monnaie et ses timbres poste. On l'utilise comme marque de fabrique pour des tex tiles, du cirage, de la farine et tout un lot d'autres produits néo-zélandais. Les troupes militaires néo-zélandaises séjournant à l'étranger sont fières de se faire appeler "Kiwis". Ces dispositions sentimentales à l'égard du Kiwi sont la meilleure garantie de sa survie, en dépit des bouleversements qui affectent toujours davantage son milieu naturel.

My translation: It takes great luck to see wild Kiwis in their natural habitat. Not because Kiwis are rare, but that they're shy and hide themselves. They live in thick, swampy forests where they spend the day concealed in burrows or under the creeping roots of trees, and only come out at night to feed. But sometimes you hear it in the "real bush" - as the New Zealanders call it, where it subsists in primary forest of kauri and tree ferns- their high and fluty call which made the Maori call them "Kiwi".

Plump birds, close in size to a large chicken, Kiwis are the smallest of primitive flightless birds. They differ from the four other extant families of Ratites, birds which lack a wishbone in the sternum, by such a great number of anatomical characteristics that in the avian evolutionary tree, their place would be at the bottom. Their closest ancestors seem to be the Moas which lived alongside them in New Zealand until around the 15th century.

The three extant species of Kiwis (two others have been discovered in Pleistocene fossil deposits) are the only representatives of their family (Apterygides) and of their order (Apterygiformes). Their number has decreased over the course of the last century. This rarefaction is due in part to the clearing of New Zealand forests for the benefit of crops, and in part due to the introduction of ermines, weasels, opossums, dogs, and cats. The first colonists hunted Kiwi to for food, but in our day, these birds hold a privileged place in the hearts of New Zealanders and are the subject of strict protection.

At first glance, Kiwis barely look like birds. The beak and the feet seem planted in the body, and the latter, short and robust, are so spread that they sway in running like a mechanical toy. Their long and rough plumage totally hides their rudimentary wings of 5 cm. Their wings and tail are featherless and the plumage that covers them has the appearance of fur because it lacks crisscrossed barbules; it is dense over all of the body with the exception of a bare patch on each side, under the stumps of the wings. This is where the Kiwi tucks its head and beak when it sleeps.

Kiwis are the only birds which have nostrils which open at the end of the beak, which measures 15cm. They have a fine sense of smell, contrary to the majority of birds, which allows them to discover the larvae and worms they feed on. Their vision, rather weak, is compensated somewhat by long straight hairs which okay a sensory role, and are located at the base of their beak.

The nest of the Kiwi is a burrow which, like the homes of the majority of Ratites, is covered by the male. The white eggs with a chalky surface are enormous (close to 13cm). They weigh around a pound, almost a quarter of the weight of the female. The clutch is thus limited to one, rarely to two eggs, which hatch after 75-80 days.

No bird or animal on the earth is considered more of a symbol of its country than the Kiwi. It's featured as the principle motif in the arms of New Zealand, and appears as well on its money and postage stamps. It's used as a brand logo for textiles, shoe polish, flour, and a whole lot of other products of New Zealand. New Zealand troops abroad are proud to call themselves "Kiwis".

[myfanfictiongarden]

Gonna just stop here for a moment to mention how awesome the animated show The Legend of Tarzan truly is. My current re-watch cements this fact even more.

I don’t even know where to start, but the fact that they continued with stories set after the original movie in such a logical manner, acknowledged all the differences both Tarzan and Jane have due to their upbringings, introduced so many new interesting characters, all all of this while even managing to tie in things from the original novels! just makes me the biggest fan of it. Like, we get the native tribe of the Waziri living deep in the jungle along the river who not only become friends and alleys but as well offer a different point of experience of humans living with nature- aligning more with how Tarzan, Jane and the professor live- contrasting with the various settlers that arrive with time. Introducing characters of such variety allows for brilliant world building! Speaking of new arrivals, I love love love that most of the people coming to their coast and jungle are not evil, yes some of them are, but most of them just completely lack any understanding of the jungle and learn from their mistakes. Even better, life in the jungle is presented as dangerous even to those who do know how to navigate in it. There is at least twenty episodes where they have to navigate the laws of the jungle in order to survive. The show perfectly shows that nature can be paradise to live in if you respect its dangers. And speaking of dangers, of course I can’t forget to mention the introduction of Queen La and the drama she brings into the story, making Tarzan and Jane’s love and commitment to each other even more romantic than it already was.

Which brings me to something I’ll especially like to draw attention, the fact that Tarzan and Jane are the only married couple we have ever been able to follow on their adventures after happily-ever-after for such lengths of time as a whole show! Think about it, Cindy & her prince got two direct-to-video movies, Ariel & Erick one movie, and Milo & Kida only bits in a canceled-before-even-aired show. You know what the coolest thing is? This show knew how to make it work, knew how to keep them adorable and interesting and fun and still showing them learning with each new day how to make it work, how to support and compliment each other through life. Call me crazy but that incredibly interesting material for a Disney kids show.

I love how no character is left out, how the professor has his moments to shine, how neither Terk nor Tantor ever get annoying, how the gorilla family is always there and Tarzan´s responsibilities towards them are never glanced over, how Jane often times misses civilisation but is more than capable in adapting to her new life, how it brings in some historic inaccurate accuracy (mixing -up discoveries & inventions from a span of 30years while still respecting history), and just how much it respects the material its working with and the audience who watches it.

This commentary may be all over the place, but there’s simply to much incredible things to talk about while keeping it shorter than 3000 pages.

[hussyknee]

"pre-civilization" is a racist term all by itself, as is the idea that migratory populations cannot be indigeneous. indigeneity is not genetic and not innate. it is a relationship with a colonizing entity.

literally every other definition of indigeneity can be weaponised to either 1. justify colonizing a certain people who don't meet the arbitrary standard, for example under your definition palestinians and domari are not indigeneous because they are post-civ and dom are migrants to the region, and 2. can be used to cloak revanchist, reactionary fascism in post-colonial societies in the language of liberation.

i do not know why you need a scholar to tell you this. i usually respect your willingness not to center yourself in these topics as someone who is not currently living under a settler colonial occupation. it is very tiresome to see people opine about indigeneity when they cannot even get the definition of the word right, and then argue with indigeneous people when we correct them.

I agree I shouldn't have used pre-civilization. I honestly feel like "civilization" is a very colonial term that reinforces the myth that societies evolve in a linear progression. I meant the fact that they remained distinct from the kind of later agrarian society that can pack up, migrate and settle elsewhere, whose technologies created expansionism and competition for resources.

I live under extractive colonialism, the Global South exists under colonality, we also need a way of describing that colonization without infringing on the colonization we inflict on others. There has to be a difference between native and indigenous. I want to be clear on what that is and whether it changes with context, because this is not the definition I have understood all my life. I never dispute that you are indigenous because you know your own struggle.

Please understand that I associate the term indigenous that something that when misapplied turns into bloody ethnic violence against your own neighbours. Eelam Tamils are colonized by us but their claim of indigeneity involved massacring Muslims praying in their mosques and forcible assimilation and displacement of Indigenous Tamils. Sinhalese who had also been in the North since the British took over and were part of their communities were expelled by them— were they indigenous? Malayyiah Tamils are kept ghettoised and indentured to the tea plantations they were brought here from India to work a hundred years ago. Many of them are not remaining in Sri Lanka by choice, others feel this is their homeland now. They're indisputably colonized yet I have never heard the term indigenous applied to them. The Veddahs were turned into a freak show by the British which was continued by the Sinhalese post-independence, or forced to leave when the agriculture of the locals deforested their lands— by the natives who had also been there for untold generations and also called themselves indigenous under British colonization. I can't imagine calling them settlers.

So yes, I want to figure out whether I have misunderstood the definition I have seen used specifically to protect the people who have been rooted in to the land they live off of and can't migrate to another place without losing their entire way of life, unlike the rest of us. I want to understand whether it's different according to the ways people are colonized. I'm sorry but neither your identity nor mine confers authority on whether other people conceptualize indigeneity differently and why. This is me telling you why what you tell me doesn't gel with what I know, not that I'm appointing myself the final authority on the subject. Please give me the space to learn about it on my own with academics and sources I know and trust.