analog-reboot machinations of my mind

(drag me!)

important!

these are my opinions. i'm not looking for a discussion or anything to change my mind. i don't care, unless i've said something wildly objectively incorrect, in which case please contact me.

Canadian Law, Indigenous Populations, and Subjugation
17:53, august 9th, 2021

Historically, the law in Canada was used extensively to subjugate Indigenous people. Initially, upon arriving in Canada, European settlers claimed that they had "discovered" the land, despite the Indigenous population already living on it and utilizing it. They claimed that Indigenous people were using the land incorrectly, and enforced the belief that if the land was not being used for Eurocentric purposes, it was not being used properly. The European settlers seized the land from the Indigenous people, withholding food and resources and using violence as a means of coercion to move the Indigenous population into reserves. These reserves have lasting impacts today, often being placed on areas with poor or rocky soil. On reserves, infrastructure is often poor, and overcrowding and underfunding is a large problem. Children on reserves attend poorly constructed schools with few resources, and unemployment rates on reserves are high.

In the mid-1800s, the Canadian officials implemented the Gradual Civilization Act to assimilate Indigenous people into acting like the Eurocentric model of a "good Indian". In order to be able to vote, Indigenous people had to fall into a certain criteria, including being a man, over 21, debt free, and educated in English or French. If this didn't apply to the person in question, they could be enfranchised, and recognized as a British citizen. This, however, would force them to give up their legal status as an Indian, and would lose all rights associated with it. Because not many Indigenous people were willing to disenfranchise themselves, the government implemented the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, which defined someones legal status as an "Indian" based on a "blood quantum". This meant that people were granted or denied status based on "what percentage of Indian" they were. Any Indigenous person that had "less than a quarter of Indian blood" would lose their status. This has the lasting effect of dividing Indigenous populations based on whether or not they are "Indian enough". Mixed or Metis people were discriminated against based on heritage, and are now still separated from the community.

The Indian Act in the late 1800s restricted the communities of Indigenous people, and confined the legal definition of "Indian", barring Metis and mixed individuals from claiming status or benefits, but still treating them as other. This had the lasting effect of dividing large portions of communities. Indigenous women who married non-indigenous men would lose their status and all benefits or claims associated with it, like reserve property or residence, or participation in politics on reserves. Indigenous men, however, who married non-indigenous women, would keep their status and even be able to pass it onto his wife and any future children.

Residential schools were constructed, where the main idea was to "kill the Indian to save the child". Indigenous children were taken from their reserves and homes, sometimes by force, and put into these boarding schools. Here, children were banned from speaking their home languages, and siblings were separated. Children were taught to speak English exclusively, and taught to read from the Bible. Parents were not often allowed to see their children, only through rarely permitted visits, and children were only allowed to write home in English, a language that the parents often couldn't understand. Children in residential schools also suffered through sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and violence. These children were forced to do difficult manual and emotional labour, and often suffered injuries that weren't properly treated. Instructors at the schools were harsh and violent, and corporal punishment was used as a means of punishment. When these children returned home from the residential schools, they found that they felt detached from their communities and cultures. They were alienated from their own communities, and still not welcomed in the typical Eurocentric communities they had been taught to conform to. Many survivors of residential schools turned to substance abuse and alcoholism to cope with their difficult and painful childhoods. The children of survivors suffer through absent or emotionally distant parents, and suffer from intergenerational trauma. Having to see their parents suffer so heavily and having parents that may be abusive or absent in turn hurts them, and if they turn to alcoholism or substances like their parents, the cycle may continue onto their children as well.

The past is not so far away, with residential schools, as the last one closed in the mid 90s, less than thirty years ago, and the impacts still resonate heavily.

-analog


the issue of kink at pride
21:09, june 7th, 2021

Kink being present at pride has been a very touchy subject around quite a few of my friends lately, with a few divided opinions. I'd like to touch on it but I'd rather not upset someone I'm going to have to see face-to-face eventually, so I'm writing on it here.

I will be using "queer" to describe the LGBTQ+ community, as I describe myself as queer and its easier to type than an acronym. I understand and acknowledge that not everyone prefers or likes this label.

The discourse at the current moment boils down to whether or not kink and BDSM belong at pride parades.

Kink spaces and LGBTQ+ spaces have long been heavily intertwined. Kink and BDSM have a long and taboo history. The norm has long been to not discuss sex, sexuality, and relationships that fall out of a traditional box. Queer relationships and kink/BDSM (hereinafter just shortened to 'kink') relationships very obviously both fall under this taboo. Before civil rights movements had established themselves, queer communities and kink communities found themselves in many common spaces, with the common idea of forming relationships and discussing ideas that didn't fall into the societal norm. In an environment where both were pressured into limited spaces, those spaces ended up having to be shared, and communities flourished and thrived together.

Along with kink comes the encouragement to openly discuss sex, sexual health, and healthy exploration of different types of relationships and boundaries. The open discussion of these topics is something that should be approached with heavy tact and care, and they definitely should not be ignored.

At the same time, however, children should and need to be allowed to feel safe in public, and in queer spaces, where it may be most important to them. To have kink at pride is to invade a public space with mature content, which is undebatably NOT okay for minors to be so heavily exposed to. Sex, kink, BDSM, and everything related need to be conversations that are encouraged, but the actual visual content should be kept to particular spaces, not to discourage it, but to protect minors. Similar to how you don't want a 12-year-old watching an R-rated movie, you don't want to expose children to R-rated content, regardless of the community it has history with.

There is a deep and long (pardon the innuendo) history between kink and queer spaces, and they do tend to overlap. However, that should not be taken as, and is not, an invitation to walk around in a public space with a BDSM harness on and your dick out. It's a situation of "appropriate time and place" and a pride parade, where children and minors are supposed to feel safe and supported, is not the time or the place for that. The discussion and education of history and health is welcomed and encouraged, but the practice of such should remain what it is, a private, adults only event where all parties are consenting. Children can not consent to seeing sexual content, so exposing it to them at a place where they're supposed to feel most safe is a violation of their trust, comfort, and boundaries.

It's a delicate balance of ensuring that they are safe, and not exposed to mature content and themes, but at the same time making sure that they know it's okay to discuss subjects like that and seek guidance without feeling ashamed.

Ending this, I'd like to reiterate that I in no way think that anyone should feel ashamed of sex, the consenting relationships they have, or any kinks they enjoy. However, I care more about the comfort of children than the visibility of people having sex, and that's just how it is for me.

-analog




start button analog_reboot thoughts prose poetry ideas horse plinko twitter made by analog back to top