Tag Archives: history

Building Home and Sovereignty: Indigenous-Led Modular Housing Across Canada

Posted on by
Reply

Indigenous-led housing initiatives across Canada are demonstrating how culturally rooted design, workforce development and modular building technology can be combined to produce durable, energy-efficient homes while returning economic agency to Indigenous communities. A clear example is the Keepers of the Circle project in Kirkland Lake, a women-led social enterprise building a 24,000 square foot modular factory to produce prefabricated panels and whole homes for northern communities. The project positions the facility as a year-round training centre focused on Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and aims to deliver passive, off-grid capable homes that reduce mould, overcrowding and winter construction constraints.  

Modular construction matters in the North because it shifts much of the work indoors, shortens on-site assembly time and allows for higher quality control and better insulation choices than conventional stick-built homes. Projects that couple those technical advantages with local control multiply the social return. For example, NUQO and other Indigenous-owned modular firms emphasize culturally informed design and female leadership in construction, showing that modularity can be adapted to Indigenous aesthetics and community needs rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all solution.  

At a larger urban scale, the Squamish Nation’s Sen̓áḵw development shows another side of Indigenous-led housing. Sen̓áḵw is an unprecedented City-building project on reserve land in Vancouver that will deliver thousands of rental units while generating long-term revenue for the Nation and reserving units for community members. It signals how Indigenous land stewardship paired with contemporary development can both address housing supply and shift municipal relationships with Nations.

Innovation is not limited to factory scale or towers. Community-driven designs such as Skeetchestn Dodeca-Homes merge Secwepemc cultural principles with modular technology to create homes tailored for rural and on-reserve realities. These initiatives highlight the importance of design sovereignty, where communities set performance, materials and spatial priorities that reflect family structures and cultural practice.  

Practical collaborations are emerging to accelerate delivery. Rapid-response modular programs and partnerships with existing manufacturers have been used to deploy units quickly to remote communities, showing a template for scale if funding, transportation and on-reserve financing barriers are addressed. Yet systemic obstacles remain, including the complex financing rules for on-reserve mortgages, patchwork funding across provinces and the logistics of shipping large components into remote regions.  

Taken together, the landscape suggests a pragmatic pathway: support Indigenous-led factories and design teams to ensure cultural fit and local jobs, expand funding mechanisms and credit products tailored to on-reserve realities, and prioritize modular, high-performance assemblies that cut costs over a building’s life. When Indigenous governance, training and technical innovation work in tandem the result is not just more housing but a model of reconciliation that builds capacity, preserves culture and produces homes that last.

Sources
Keepers of the Circle modular factory page.
NUQO modular housing company.
Squamish Nation Sen̓áḵw project page.
Skeetchestn Dodeca-Homes project page.
ROC Modular rapid-response and modular housing examples.  

The Paradox of Progress: Why Social Change Often Feels Like Loss To The Majority 

Posted on by
Reply

In the work of a business consultant, change is a constant theme. Helping teams and organizations evolve often involves navigating the resistance that accompanies any disruption to the status quo. But this resistance isn’t unique to the corporate world, it mirrors broader societal reactions to social rebalancing efforts aimed at addressing inequality.

When societies attempt to redress systemic inequities and provide fair treatment for historically marginalized groups, resistance from the majority is a predictable, if not inevitable, response. What feels like progress to one group can feel like a loss to another. This phenomenon, rooted in psychology, social dynamics, and cultural identity, often transforms equality into a battleground.

Fear of Loss: The Power of Perception
Psychologists point to loss aversion as a key driver of resistance. People fear losing what they perceive as theirs more than they value gaining something new. In the context of social change, efforts to redistribute opportunities or resources to marginalized groups, such as workplace diversity initiatives, can feel to the majority like favoritism or unfair quotas. The reality that their rights remain intact often does little to assuage the emotional perception of loss.

Compounding this fear is a mindset known as zero-sum thinking. Many see opportunities and resources as a fixed pie: if one group gets a larger slice, another must get less. This belief frames the push for equity as a direct threat to the majority’s status, even though social equity often creates broader benefits for society as a whole.

Identity Under Siege
Resistance is not just about resources, it’s also about cultural identity. When dominant norms are challenged by changes like gender-neutral policies, anti-racist education, or expanded LGBTQ+ rights, these shifts can feel deeply personal to those who see their traditions as under attack. This fear of cultural loss often fuels narratives that frame change as an existential threat to the majority’s way of life.

Visible changes exacerbate this perception. Policies aimed at diversity, for example, are often highly noticeable: new hiring practices, updated media representation, or inclusive language reforms. These changes stand out more than the entrenched inequities they seek to address, making them seem disproportionate or unnecessary.

Status and Power: The Fight to Stay on Top
Social dominance theory offers another lens to understand the pushback. Those accustomed to holding power within a social hierarchy often resist efforts to level the playing field. For these groups, rebalancing isn’t just about perceived loss, it’s a challenge to their very status, sparking defensive claims of oppression.

The perception of threat is amplified by polarized media and political rhetoric. Leaders and platforms that oppose social progress often frame equity efforts as an attack on the majority, fueling fear and resentment. This narrative turns equality into a zero-sum game and victimizes those who already hold power.

The Role of Historical Context
Another factor driving resistance is historical amnesia. Without an understanding of the systemic barriers faced by marginalized groups, rebalancing efforts can seem unjustified. For instance, policies like affirmative action, intended to address historical inequities, are often misinterpreted as preferential treatment, rather than as remedies for long-standing disadvantages.

Bridging the Divide
Resistance to social progress isn’t rooted in actual losses of rights, but in the perception of loss. Psychological tendencies, cultural attachment, and divisive narratives all play a role in creating this resistance. Addressing it requires empathy, education, and open dialogue.

By fostering an understanding of systemic inequities and the broader benefits of equity, societies can bridge divides and navigate the inevitable pushback that accompanies change. Social progress may be disruptive, but it paves the way for a more inclusive and equitable future – one where progress is not seen as a loss, but as a shared gain.

From Margins to Mainstream: Mapping Canada’s Extremist Surge

Posted on by
Reply

Masked street mobilizations and online echo chambers are visible symptoms of a deeper shift in Canada’s political landscape. What once seemed like marginal groups have found renewed capacity to organize, recruit and intimidate through a blend of in-person rallies and social media amplification. The Niagara rally reported by CBC is not an isolated curiosity, but part of a pattern of small, local actions that feed a national ecosystem of grievance, identity politics and conspiratorial narratives.  

The scale of the problem can be measured in public data. Police-reported hate crimes reached 4,777 incidents in 2023, an increase of 32 percent from 2022 and more than double the level recorded in 2019. These statistics do not merely count crimes. They indicate a widening public space in which targeted hostility against religious, racial and sexual minorities has become more frequent and more visible. The sharp rise in antisemitic and sexual orientation motivated incidents stands out as evidence that certain communities are being disproportionately affected.  

National security agencies have also sounded alarms. Recent public reporting from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service documents the diversification of extremist threats within Canada and the real-world harms that can emerge from online radicalization. Analysts point to a mosaic of actors including white supremacists, ethnonationalists, militia-style adherents and anti-government networks. That heterogeneity makes a single policy response insufficient. Effective mitigation requires coordinated law enforcement, targeted community supports and a sharper focus on the digital platforms that enable cross-jurisdictional recruitment.  

Transnational influences matter. Ottawa’s 2021 decision to list the U.S. Three Percenters militia as a terrorist entity underscores how American militia culture and extremist flows cross the border. That decision was an acknowledgement that ideological currents and organizational tactics are not constrained by national boundaries. Canadian actors borrow symbols, rhetoric and operational playbooks from movements abroad, complicating the domestic security picture and raising questions about how best to disrupt international networks without undermining civil liberties.   

Civil society research highlights the central role of online environments in the recent resurgence. Scans of social media and fringe platforms document how recruitment, normalization and coordination occur through memes, influencers and algorithmic suggestion. Those processes create local nodes of activity that can quickly translate into physical gatherings, harassment campaigns or worse. The internet does not create grievances, but it accelerates their spread and lowers the cost of mobilization.  

Policy responses must be pragmatic and evidence based. Better resourcing for hate crime reporting and victim support will improve data quality and community resilience. Transparent intelligence-public safety engagement can help identify violent plots early without casting suspicion across entire communities. Digital literacy initiatives and platform accountability will reduce the fertile ground on which extremist recruiters thrive. Above all, elected leaders must use language that reduces polarization rather than stokes it, because political rhetoric shapes both perception and legitimacy in the public square.

Sources:
CBC report on the Niagara rally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/second-sons-rally-in-niagara-1.7628162
Statistics Canada Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2023 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250325/dq250325a-eng.htm
CSIS Public Report 2024 https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/csis-scrs/images/2024publicreport/newest/Public_Report_2024-ENG.pdf
Reuters on Three Percenters terrorist listing https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-puts-us-right-wing-three-percenters-militia-group-terror-list-2021-06-25/
ISD An Online Environmental Scan of Right-wing Extremism in Canada https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/An-Online-Environmental-Scan-of-Right-wing-Extremism-in-Canada-ISD.pdf

Blood and Creed: Vice President Vance’s Reimagining of American Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

On July 5, 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a notable address at the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award Dinner in San Diego. For a man in the second-highest office of the land, his treatment of American citizenship was striking, not for its novelty, but for its clear departure from foundational norms. 

From Creed to Kinship
Vance began by challenging the idea of the United States as a creedal nation, a polity bound by shared principles of the Declaration of Independence, calling it simultaneously over-inclusive (drawing in “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” who support American ideals abroad) and under-inclusive (excluding those with ancestral ties, but extremist beliefs). He presented a contrasting model of citizenship rooted in ancestry, place, and “blood-and-soil.” With sentimental reference to generations of his family buried in a Kentucky cemetery, Vance argued that belonging should be tied to living history and rootedness rather than abstract ideals. 

This represents more than rhetorical flourish. It signals a paradigm shift, from civic affiliation to ethnic membership. In Vance’s terms, ancestry becomes a qualifier; heritage becomes identity.

Critique from the Center and Beyond
Historians and public intellectuals wasted little time pushing back. Ambassador Daniel Fried offered a powerful critique in The National Interest, opposing Vance’s redefinition for its reversal of Abraham Lincoln’s post–Civil War vision. Lincoln had conceived the nation as “a new nation, conceived in liberty”, not as a bloodline-bound entity. Fried emphasized that Lincoln saw citizenship as a matter of shared principles, not ancestry, drawing on immigrants who “feel…they are part of us” through creed.

Historian and public author John Ganz described Vance’s stance as an “anti-Declaration.” He highlighted the inconsistency of invoking Revolutionary and Civil War symbols while undermining the very ideals those conflicts advanced. Ganz drew contrast with Harry Jaffa, whose defense of Lincoln affirmed that “all men are created equal” meant just that, regardless of bloodline.

Tad Stoermer’s “Heritage Citizenship”
Into this debate steps Tad Stoermer: public historian, educator, and author, who coined the term “heritage citizenship” to categorize this turn toward ancestry-based belonging. Stoermer views this not as nostalgic reflection but as active project: a “restoration” of a racially-defined First Republic rooted in whiteness. The goal, he suggests, is the rewriting of constitutional logic, to reassert lineage as citizenship’s arbiter. 

Why This Matters Today
If Vance’s vision is enacted, it would have real-world consequences:

1. Birthright Citizenship at Risk
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth within U.S. jurisdiction: an inclusive, principle-based foundation. Vance’s model, however, introduces a lineage test, posing a legal challenge to this constitutional baseline.

2. Political and Social Exclusion
Consider the millions of post-1965 immigrant-descended Americans: legal, patriotic, educated, yet lacking “Appalachian blood.” Their citizenship, under Vance’s rubric, becomes negotiable, diluted by ancestry.

3. Ideological Flexibility for Elites
Despite its broad implications, heritage citizenship allows selective exceptions, for political elites, spouses, or allies (e.g., Vance’s own wife, born in California to Indian immigrants), which erodes the internal consistency of the ideology. Vance can romanticize heritage, while simultaneously reserving membership for his inner circle.

Going Backwards – Constitutionally and Symbolically
This vision directly counters Lincoln’s redefinition of the Union after 1863. At Gettysburg, he consecrated the Union’s cause as “a new birth of freedom,”establishing citizenship through legal equality. Vance’s model, in contrast, retreats into pre-14th Amendment logic, where race and lineage determined belonging.

It also undermines the United States’ role on the global stage. Fried points out that the American creed, its principle-based identity, enabled it to attract “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” of adherents abroad, forming what he describes as a “positive-sum” global leadership structure  . Heritage-based identity, by contrast, is zero-sum, exclusive, and inward-looking.

A Historian’s Judgment
For any senior historian, the implications are stark:
• Constitutional Regression: Voting rights and equal protection, hard-won through amendments and civil rights struggles, are put back on the chopping block.
• Political Inequality: Heritage citizenship enables a bifurcated class of Americans, those with “authentic” lineage and those without.
• National Myth versus National Reality: The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants and wanderers. Vance’s speech polices belonging by ancestry, contra 250 years of integrated identity-building.

Vice President Vance’s Claremont Institute speech is not merely poetic, it is profoundly political. It stakes out heritage, soil, and blood as qualifiers of sovereignty. Critics like Fried, Ganz, and Stoermer understand this as both intellectual and legal retrenchment. The choice now faces American democracy: Will we continue as a principle-based republic, where citizenship is claimed through belief, law, and shared action? Or will we succumb to a lineage-based model that narrows the definition of who belongs?

In highlighting ancestry over creed, Vance’s model asks an inflammatory question: does American identity belong to those we include, or those we exclude? The answer, for nearly two centuries, has been creed. It must remain so.

In a nation guided by Vance-style heritage criteria, citizenship would shift from being a legal, civic covenant to a cultural inheritance. That model would disqualify immigrants, their children, Jewish Americans, those of Latino or Asian descent, even well-known political figures, unless they belong to the “right” ancestry group. Yet the model grants latitude for elite figures, a glaring hypocrisy exposing the project’s exclusionary core. It’s not just a nostalgic vision, it’s a blueprint for a tiered citizenry: real if you’re insider heritage, negotiable if not.

The Lost Diversity of Humanity 

Posted on by
Reply

Roughly one hundred thousand years ago, the world was home to a remarkable diversity of human species. Modern humans were only beginning their first tentative steps beyond Africa, but they were not alone. Several other lineages thrived, each adapted to its own landscapes, climates, and ways of life. These were not different “races” of a single species but distinct human branches, separated by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, yet sometimes still close enough to interbreed.

Neanderthals were the best known of these relatives. They occupied Europe and western Asia, building tools, hunting in coordinated groups, and surviving in some of the harshest Ice Age environments. To the east, Denisovans spread widely across Asia. Although only a handful of their bones and teeth have been recovered, genetic studies show that Denisovans were a major lineage, leaving traces of their DNA in modern populations from Tibet to Oceania. On the island of Java, the last populations of Homo erectus endured. This species had been extraordinarily successful, spreading out of Africa nearly two million years earlier, and fossils suggest they survived until at least 117,000 years ago.

Other species thrived in more isolated environments. On the island of Flores in Indonesia lived Homo floresiensis, often nicknamed the “hobbit” because of its small stature. Despite its diminutive size, this species produced stone tools and likely controlled fire, persisting until around 60,000 years ago. In the Philippines, another small-bodied species, Homo luzonensis, has been identified from remains dating between 67,000 and 50,000 years ago. These island species highlight how isolation could produce unique evolutionary experiments within the genus Homo.

In Africa, earlier lineages had already left their mark. Homo naledi, known from the Rising Star cave system in South Africa, lived between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago. Their remains show an unusual mix of primitive and modern features, alongside evidence suggesting deliberate placement of bodies in cave chambers. Although not contemporaneous with Neanderthals or Denisovans, Homo naledi demonstrates that the human family tree was even more diverse than the late-surviving species of the Pleistocene.

These populations were not fully isolated from one another. Modern genetic evidence shows that Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with Homo sapiens, and a few individuals even carry ancestry from both. Today, people of non-African descent typically have about 1–2 percent Neanderthal DNA, while some Oceanian groups carry up to 4–6 percent Denisovan DNA. Our genomes are a living archive of those encounters.

Why so many human lineages disappeared remains an open question. Climate fluctuations would have stressed small, scattered populations. Competition for resources may have sharpened between overlapping groups. New pathogens could have devastated communities without immunity. In some cases, Homo sapiens likely held advantages in technology, social organization, or long-distance networks of exchange. But randomness also played a role: survival at evolutionary bottlenecks is often as much about chance as about superiority.

By about 32,000 years ago, only one human species remained – Homo sapiens. Neanderthals had vanished from their European strongholds, Denisovans disappeared from the high plateaus of Asia, and the island species had long gone extinct. What survives of this lost diversity are fragments of bone, stone tools, and strands of DNA that remind us of a time when humanity was not a single lineage but a family of experiments in survival.

Far from a story of inevitable triumph, the rise of Homo sapiens is a reminder of how precarious our own existence once was. The fact that we endure may owe less to strength or intelligence than to timing, adaptability, and the accidents of evolutionary history.

Sources
• Dirks, P. H. G. M., et al. “The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the Rising Star Cave, South Africa.” eLife, 2017.
• Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. “Homo naledi.” Updated January 3, 2024.
• Détroit, F., et al. “A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippines.” Nature, 2019.
• Brumm, A., et al. “Age and context of Homo floresiensis remains from Liang Bua, Flores.” Nature, 2016.
• Antón, S. C., et al. “Redating Homo erectus at Ngandong, Java, Indonesia.” Nature, 2019.
• Higham, T., et al. “The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance.” Nature, 2014.
• Chen, F., et al. “A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau.” Nature, 2019.
• Huerta-Sánchez, E., et al. “Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA.” Nature, 2014.
• Green, R. E., et al. “A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome.” Science, 2010.
• Reich, D., et al. “Denisova admixture and the first modern human dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania.” American Journal of Human Genetics, 2011.
• Slon, V., et al. “The genome of the offspring of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father.” Nature, 2018.

Cascadia Rising: Ecology, Identity, Politics

Posted on by
Reply

I began this article over a year ago, and at the time my biggest challenge was finding its focus. I wasn’t sure what the central thread should be, so I followed the flow of ideas and shaped it into a summary of recent activities and announcements. In many ways, it became a placeholder; something to capture the moment and hold space until I had the chance to return and explore the subject in greater depth.

1. Bioregional Roots & Indigenous Foundations
The idea of Cascadia springs from the interconnected ecosystems spanning the Cascade Range; anchored by rivers like the Fraser, Columbia, and Snake, a landscape long inhabited by diverse Indigenous nations: Chinook, Haida, Nootka, Tlingit, and dozens more, whose vibrant cultures predate colonial borders by millennia.   

In Indigenous understanding, stewardship over land and salmon-rich waters isn’t just practical; it’s spiritual. Their societies are woven into place, honoring ecosystems as kin. This pre-colonial history sets a vital foundation for any modern Cascadia vision.

Today, Cascadian movements forefront Indigenous sovereignty and truth and reconciliation, advocating for dialogue-led, consensus-based confederation models where First Nations guide governance and cultural revitalization, like restoring Chinuk Wawa as a regional lingua franca.  

2. Bioregionalism & Mapping as Decolonizing Tools
Bioregionalism – which Cascadia champions, breaks from traditional politics, centering its framework on natural boundaries and ecological integrity. Indigenous mapping traditions inform this, such as bioregional atlases by Tsilhqotʼin, Nisga’a, Tsleil-Waututh, and others that helped affirm territorial claims in court.  

Through community-driven cartography, highlighting traditional ecosystems, language, stories; bioregional maps act as instruments of empowerment, healing, and planning rooted in place-based knowledge.  

3. Elizabeth May’s Provocative Invitation & BC’s Identity
In January 2025, Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May reignited Cascadian conversation with a striking, partly rhetorical offer: that California, Oregon, and Washington might consider joining Canada; with BC naturally included in the idea, based on shared values like universal healthcare, reproductive rights, and climate justice.  

Her gesture wasn’t an actual policy, but served as an emblematic spark, fueling grassroots discussions across the region; especially in BC, where many already feel culturally closer to the U.S. West Coast than to central Canada. This made the concept of transnational Cascadia feel suddenly plausible.  

4. Governor Newsom & West Coast Climate Leadership
Cascadia’s vision isn’t purely conceptual, it’s grounded in concrete policy collaboration:
• In May 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom was appointed co-chair of the U.S. Climate Alliance, joining a bipartisan coalition of 24 governors spearheading high-impact, state-driven climate action, encompassing nearly 60% of the U.S. economy and 55% of its population.
• Newsom also announced a major cap-and-invest (formerly cap-and-trade) budget proposal, extending California’s program through 2045 and earmarking billions toward firefighting, high-speed rail, and climate adaptation projects.   
• The three regional partners – California, Québec, and Washington, have also agreed to explore linkage of their carbon markets, signaling potential for a broader, cross-border climate economy.  
• Simultaneously, West Coast governors (Newsom, Oregon’s Tina Kotek, and Washington’s Bob Ferguson) signed a joint statement promising to defend their states’ climate policies against federal rollback, demonstrating regional resolve and cohesion.  

5. Indigenous and Climate Confluence in Cascadia’s Future
Modern Cascadia stands at the intersection of Indigenous resurgence and regional policymaking. Here’s how they converge:
• Indigenous frameworks act as ethical and governance cornerstones; urging truth, place-based authority, and cultural restoration, especially in BC where colonial histories persist.
• Bioregionalism and community mapping form tools for inclusion and urban planning that honor traditional ecological knowledge.
• Cross-border cooperation on climate, via co-carbon markets and alliances, offers practical scaffolding for aligning policy with ecological realities.
• Political solidarity, as seen in Newsom’s climate leadership and the West Coast climate defense, underscores Cascadia’s capacity as a functional mega-region, not merely a cultural idea.

Cascadia Reimagined: A Vision of Inclusive, Place-Based Governance
Cascadia today is evolving, not as a secessionist movement, but as an integrated regional model that:
• Places Indigenous sovereignty and ecological connection at its core.
• Encourages cross-jurisdictional collaboration on climate, economy, and culture.
• Utilizes bioregional mapping as a decolonizing and planning tool.
• Builds grassroots resonance through symbols, discourse, and identity.
• Innovates policy frameworks connecting shared values, particularly across BC and U.S. West Coast states.

Elizabeth May’s invitation, Governor Newsom’s climate strategy, and Indigenous leadership together signal a Cascadia imbued with governance relevance, moral thickness, and aspirational scope.

Sources
• Cascadia Bioregional Movement. Indigenous Sovereignties. Cascadia Bioregion. https://cascadiabioregion.org/indigenous-sovereignties
• Cascadia Bioregion. The Cascadia Movement. https://cascadiabioregion.org/the-cascadia-movement
• Cascadia Bioregion. Independence and Public Opinion. https://cascadiabioregion.org/independence-2
• CascadiaNow! Building a Resilient Cascadia. https://www.cascadianow.org
• Brandon Letsinger. It’s Time for a Cascadia Political Movement. https://brandonletsinger.com/political-movement/its-time-for-a-cascadia-political-movement
• KIRO 7 News. Canadian Lawmaker Offers to Take Washington, Oregon, California as New Provinces. January 10, 2025. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/canadian-lawmaker-offers-take-washington-oregon-california-new-provinces/LPFT7I4AYBGCLHBKVOB2TIFQOQ
• Cascadia Daily News. Washington Joining Canada? Don’t Bet Your Timbits. January 10, 2025. https://www.cascadiadaily.com/2025/jan/10/washington-joining-canada-dont-bet-your-timbits
• OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting). West Coast Governors Say They Will Defend Their Climate Policies Against Trump Attack. April 10, 2025. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/10/west-coast-governors-we-will-defend-our-climate-policies-against-trump-attack
• Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor Newsom Appointed Co-Chair of U.S. Climate Alliance. May 9, 2025. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/05/09/governor-newsom-appointed-co-chair-of-u-s-climate-alliance
• U.S. Climate Alliance. News & Events. https://usclimatealliance.org/news-events
• CalMatters. Newsom’s Budget Leans on Cap-and-Invest to Fund High-Speed Rail and Firefighting. May 2025. https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2025/05/california-governor-climate-budget-cap-trade-high-speed-rail
• ClearBlue Markets. California Cap-and-Invest Program: Extension Proposed in California Budget. 2025. https://www.clearbluemarkets.com/knowledge-base/california-cap-and-invest-program-program-extension-proposed-in-california-budget
• Washington Department of Ecology. Shared Carbon Market Agreement between California, Québec, and Washington. March 20, 2024. https://ecology.wa.gov/about-us/who-we-are/news/2024/mar-20-shared-carbon-market

Correcting the Map: Africa and the Push for Equal Earth

Posted on by
Reply

As regular readers know, I often write about geomatics, its services, and products. While I tend to be a purist when it comes to map projections, favouring the Cahill-Keyes and AuthaGraph projections, I can understand why the Equal Earth projection might be more popular, as it still looks familiar enough to resemble a traditional map.

The Equal Earth map projection is gaining prominence as a tool for reshaping global perceptions of geography, particularly in the context of Africa’s representation. Endorsed by the African Union and advocacy groups like Africa No Filter and Speak Up Africa, the “Correct The Map” campaign seeks to replace the traditional Mercator projection with the Equal Earth projection to more accurately depict Africa’s true size and significance. 

Origins and Design of the Equal Earth Projection
Introduced in 2018 by cartographers Bojan Šavrič, Bernhard Jenny, and Tom Patterson, the Equal Earth projection is an equal-area pseudocylindrical map designed to address the distortions inherent in the Mercator projection. While the Mercator projection is useful for navigation, it significantly enlarges regions near the poles and shrinks equatorial regions, leading to a misrepresentation of landmass sizes. In contrast, the Equal Earth projection maintains the relative sizes of areas, offering a more accurate visual representation of continents.  

Africa’s Distorted Representation in Traditional Maps
The Mercator projection, created in 1569, has been widely used for centuries. However, it distorts the size of continents, particularly those near the equator. Africa, for instance, appears smaller than it actually is, which can perpetuate stereotypes and misconceptions about the continent. This distortion has implications for global perceptions and can influence educational materials, media portrayals, and policy decisions.    

The “Correct The Map” Campaign
The “Correct The Map” campaign aims to challenge these historical inaccuracies by promoting the adoption of the Equal Earth projection. The African Union has actively supported this initiative, emphasizing the importance of accurate geographical representations in reclaiming Africa’s rightful place on the global stage. By advocating for the use of the Equal Earth projection in schools, media, and international organizations, the campaign seeks to foster a more equitable understanding of Africa’s size and significance.   

Broader Implications and Global Support
The push for the Equal Earth projection is part of a broader movement to decolonize cartography and challenge Eurocentric perspectives. By adopting map projections that accurately reflect the true size of continents, especially Africa, the global community can promote a more balanced and inclusive worldview. Institutions like NASA and the World Bank have already begun to recognize the value of the Equal Earth projection, and its adoption is expected to grow in the coming years. 

The Equal Earth map projection represents more than just a technical advancement in cartography; it symbolizes a shift towards greater equity and accuracy in how the world is represented. By supporting initiatives like the “Correct The Map” campaign, individuals and organizations can contribute to a more just and accurate portrayal of Africa and other regions, fostering a global environment where all continents are recognized for their true size and importance.

Canada Post’s Red Flag Fumble: Why “Clarifications” Can Backfire

Posted on by
Reply

Canada Post has a knack for finding itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. This week’s rural delivery flap (pun intended) has all the makings of another avoidable PR bruise. The issue? Mail carriers in rural areas have been told not to raise the red flag on mailboxes to signal incoming mail. According to Canada Post, the flag’s intended use has always been one-way: customers put it up to show there’s outgoing mail for pickup. The new instruction, they insist, is simply a “clarification” of longstanding policy, not a change in service.

For many rural residents, especially those with long driveways or mobility challenges, that little red flag has been a simple, effective communication tool for decades. It’s the rural equivalent of the notification icon on your phone – no need to trek through the snow or heat just to find an empty mailbox. Taking that away may align with corporate guidelines, but it’s a practical step backward in terms of customer experience.

Canada Post’s position is that the flag’s misuse by some carriers created inconsistency across the country. Some postal workers raised the flag for incoming mail, others didn’t, and now they’re enforcing a uniform standard. That sounds fine in a policy manual, but in real life, it translates into removing a service habit people value, without offering a replacement. And while this might be a small operational tweak from their perspective, it has outsized symbolic weight in the communities it affects.

The reaction has been swift and pointed. Rural customers, already feeling underserved compared to their urban counterparts, see this as yet another example of Ottawa making decisions without understanding life outside the city. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers says it wasn’t even consulted before the clarification went out. That’s not just a failure of courtesy; it’s a failure of internal communication that risks alienating frontline staff, the very people who are the public face of Canada Post.

For a federal agency that has spent years trying to modernize its image and service model, this is a curious hill to die on. Public trust in Canada Post has already been dented by service delays, price hikes, and reduced delivery frequency in some areas. Now, they’ve added a decision that feels to many, like a needless reduction in convenience. The optics are terrible: instead of talking about new rural service improvements, the conversation is about a flag on a box.

Good public relations isn’t just about press releases and branding campaigns. It’s about anticipating how policy changes, even small ones, will land with the people you serve. A true customer-first approach would have looked for alternatives: maybe a text notification service for rural deliveries, or an opt-in program where carriers could continue flag use. Instead, Canada Post has doubled down on the technical definition of a mailbox flag, while ignoring the human element of how that signal has been woven into daily routines.

The irony is that the red flag rule may be correct in theory, but in practice, it’s a perfect example of winning the policy argument while losing the public. For rural Canadians, this feels like one more example of an institution not listening. And for Canada Post, it’s another case of stepping on their own toes – this time, with both boots planted firmly in the gravel of a country driveway.

Sources: CP24, Halifax CityNews, CJDC TV

Professor Michele Dougherty: Breaking a 350‑Year Barrier in British Astronomy

Posted on by
Reply

When King Charles II created the post of Astronomer Royal in 1675, alongside the founding of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, it was more than just a courtly appointment. The role was charged with solving one of the most pressing scientific problems of the age: finding longitude at sea. Over the centuries, its holders have included some of the most brilliant minds in science. John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, painstakingly mapped the stars to guide navigation. Edmond Halley predicted the return of his famous comet. Nevil Maskelyne brought precision to seafaring with The Nautical Almanac. Sir George Biddell Airy fixed Greenwich as the Prime Meridian. In the 20th century, Sir Frank Watson Dyson’s solar eclipse observations confirmed Einstein’s General Relativity, and Martin Rees became one of the world’s most eloquent science communicators.

For 350 years, however, the title, one of the most prestigious in British science, was held only by men. That changed on 30 July 2025, when His Majesty King Charles III appointed Professor Michele Dougherty as the 16th Astronomer Royal, making her the first woman ever to hold the office.

Dougherty’s appointment was no token gesture. Born in South Africa and now Professor of Space Physics at Imperial College London, she has built an extraordinary scientific career. She led the magnetometer team on NASA’s Cassini–Huygens mission, which revealed towering plumes of water erupting from Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus; findings that ignited the search for life beyond Earth. Today, she leads the magnetometer investigation for ESA’s JUICE mission to Jupiter’s moons, launched in 2023, and bound for Ganymede to probe its suspected subsurface ocean.

Her leadership extends well beyond planetary science. Dougherty is Executive Chair of the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council, overseeing major research infrastructure and funding. She is also the President‑elect of the Institute of Physics. In each of these roles, she has championed ambitious science, argued for investment in research, and worked to make science accessible to the public.

Asked about her appointment, Dougherty expressed both surprise and pride. She acknowledged the symbolic significance of being the first woman in a position historically reserved for men, while insisting her selection was based on the strength of her record, not her gender. Still, she hopes her visibility in such a revered role will inspire girls and young women to pursue careers in STEM.

The Astronomer Royal no longer runs an observatory; the role is now honorary, a recognition of exceptional achievement and a platform for public engagement. Holders advise the monarch on astronomical matters and serve as ambassadors for British science. It is a role steeped in history and weighted with symbolic gravitas.

In that context, Dougherty’s appointment is more than a personal accolade. It signals the enduring relevance of astronomy in the 21st century and Britain’s commitment to scientific leadership. She inherits a legacy stretching from the age of sail to the age of space exploration. As she takes up the mantle, she has said her mission is clear: to enthuse the public about the wonders of the universe and to show how space science enriches life here on Earth.

The Lost Republic: How America Abandoned Reconstruction and Built the Wrong Nation

Posted on by
Reply

The United States stands today on the foundation of an unfinished revolution. The Civil War, often portrayed as the crucible in which the nation was made whole, was followed by a period of unparalleled opportunity to remake the republic. That window, known as Reconstruction, saw the brief emergence of a multiracial democracy in the former Confederate states, shepherded by the Radical Republicans in Congress. These were men who believed, fiercely and with moral clarity, that the war’s outcome demanded nothing less than the complete transformation of Southern society and the full inclusion of formerly enslaved people as citizens, voters, and landowners. What followed instead was a quiet, but definitive betrayal: a failure to complete the project of Reconstruction that left the white supremacist order largely intact, and gave rise to what some, including political commentator Allison Wiltz, now refer to as the “Second Republic.”

The Radical Republicans imagined a different America, one that would break the planter class’s hold over Southern life and reconstruct the country on the basis of racial equality and federal protection of civil rights. Their vision included land redistribution, the use of military force to protect Black communities, and the permanent disenfranchisement of Confederate leaders. The legal architecture was established: the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments promised freedom, citizenship, and suffrage. For a moment, this new republic seemed within reach. Black men voted and held office; schools and mutual aid societies flourished; and a vibrant, if fragile, political culture began to take root in the South.

Yet the resistance to this vision was swift and violent. Former Confederates, resentful and unrepentant, regrouped under new banners. Paramilitary groups like the Ku Klux Klan emerged to intimidate Black voters and assassinate Black officeholders. Northern commitment to the cause of Reconstruction waned in the face of political fatigue, economic anxiety, and racist sentiment. The Compromise of 1877, which ended federal military occupation of the South, is widely recognized as the final nail in the coffin of Reconstruction. In exchange for a peaceful transfer of power in a contested presidential election, federal troops were withdrawn, effectively abandoning Black Southerners to white rule once again.

What emerged from this retreat was not the restoration of the antebellum order, but its mutation into something more insidious. The Southern elite reasserted dominance not through slavery, but through systems of racial control that would become known as Jim Crow. Sharecropping, vagrancy laws, and racial terror filled the vacuum left by federal inaction. In the North, corporate capitalism surged forward, aided by a Supreme Court increasingly hostile to civil rights and sympathetic to business interests. The new republic, this Second Republic, was forged not in the idealism of the Radical Republicans, but in the compromise between Northern capital and Southern white supremacy.

This betrayal continues to shape the American republic. The legacy of that failed Reconstruction is visible in the persistent racial wealth gap, in mass incarceration, and in the legal structures that continue to insulate white political power from meaningful multiracial challenge. It is felt in the enduring distortions of the Senate and Electoral College, institutions that grant disproportionate influence to states that once formed the Confederacy. It is also enshrined in the judicial philosophy that privileges state power over federal guarantees of equality, a doctrine born in the retreat from Reconstruction, and still central to American constitutional life.

What if the Radical Republicans had succeeded? That question, once the domain of counterfactual speculation, is now a central concern of a new generation of historians and public thinkers. They argue that the United States would have become a different nation entirely, one in which racial justice was not a belated corrective, but a foundational principle. A country in which democracy was not constrained by white fear and property rights, but energized by the full participation of all its citizens. In short, they argue that the real opportunity to found a just republic came not in 1776, but in the 1860s, and that the country blinked.

In this light, America’s long twentieth century: the civil rights movement, the New Deal, the struggle for voting rights, can be seen not as inevitable progress but as a series of rear-guard actions trying to recover ground lost in the 1870s. Each new wave of reform has faced the same obstacles that defeated Reconstruction: the intransigence of entrenched interests, the ambivalence of white moderates, and the enduring capacity of American institutions to absorb and deflect demands for justice. The Second Republic, born of compromise and fear, remains with us still.

To understand the full dimensions of America’s present crises, from voter suppression to white nationalist resurgence, requires reckoning with the moment the nation chose reconciliation over transformation. Reconstruction was not a tragic failure of policy; it was an abandoned revolution, and until that original promise is fulfilled, the United States remains a republic only partially realized, haunted by the ghosts of the one it refused to become.

Sources:
• Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877.Harper & Row, 1988.
• Blackmon, Douglas A. Slavery by Another Name. Anchor Books, 2008.
• Wiltz, Allison. “How the United States Became a Second Republic.” Medium, 2022.
• Du Bois, W.E.B. Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. Free Press, 1998 (original 1935).