I’m not usually one to quote books because I rarely remember them, but I’m going to do it here. It’s from Wayne Johnston’s tale of Newfoundland, The Colony of Unrequited Dreams:
“Every morning, before work, using the oilcloth as my model, I drew the map of Newfoundland. My goal was to be able to draw it as well from memory as I could draw the map England. For the longest while, after I began drawing Newfoundland, it was the map of England I saw when I closed my eyes at night, as though my mind were sending forth this primary shape by way of protest — which it needn’t have bothered doing, since England had been so early imprinted on my brain that no amount of drawing other maps could supplant it.”
The instant I read that passage I highlighted it, wrote it down, made sure I would be able to access it because it resonated so deeply with me.
In Unrequited Dreams, British teachers make it very clear to their pupils in Newfoundland that England is the heart of civilization, of history, and that nothing to come from the colonies will ever be as good. To reinforce that, they elevate English writers, leaders and even geography as far more important than anything of local concern.
Unlike the novel’s protagonist, I was not made to draw a map of England every morning while attending school. But the imprint of England, and of other, more exciting and important places, imprinted itself on my mind at a very early age.
This sense of European superiority is no longer as blatant in Canadian society, but Canadian inferiority certainly is. Whether we’re discussing comedy, music, film, food or virtually anything else, a nagging question in the Canadian mind is “are we good enough?”
I believe that question, that doubt, comes from the importance we place on the cultures and histories of other places over our own. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with knowing about the rest of the world- in fact, it’s essential. But often that knowledge comes at the expense of knowing anything of ourselves.
The above map is not atypical of the way Canadians are taught to think about their country. Some capitals, a few out-of-the-way cities, and vast tracts of nothingness in-between. A barren land.
Then there’s the map that I have hanging on the wall in my dining room:
It represents British Columbia by the traditional territories of its First People. These are unique cultural and political entities, shaped by centuries of history, with their own languages, social structures, and traditions.
I purchased this map as a reminder that there’s nothing inherent about Canada being a dull monoculture from coast-to-coast: this way of thinking is a mythology enforced by a lack of knowledge of both the past and the present.
Even look at the name of this province: “British Columbia.” Not wanting to be bothered to come up with any unique identifiers, the powers-that-be opted to give this tract of land, bigger than France and Germany combined, “Columbia” — but you know, the British version.
Then there’s the city I was born, raised, and continue to live in: Prince George. Did a Prince George ever live here? Set foot here? Even be aware of the place? On the last, maybe, on the other two, definitely not. And yet the city’s founders, apparently unable to think of themselves in terms of nothing else than British subjects, opted to use the creation of a new city as an opportunity to honour some low-tier foreign royal rather than look for anything of local significance to identify the place.
Which is a shame, because there was a perfectly good name kicking around already: “Lheidli T’enneh”. Pronounced “KLATE-lee TEN-eh”, it is taken from the Dakelh words for “people” — T’enneh — and “confluence” — Lheidli. Combined, the words mean “people of the confluence” which makes perfect sense since they were settled at the confluence of two rivers, the Nechako and the Lhtakoh (Fraser).
But instead the city founders decided to burn the village of Lheidli and rename the land, erasing their presence both physically and psychologically.
Had the early Europeans thought about it, they may have realized it would make sense to keep using the name already in place. After all they, too, were people of the confluence, having arrived here to take advantage of the commercial aspects the two rivers afforded. In the very early days of contact, trade was done by canoe. Later, paddlewheels were a major transportation source of both people and goods. And even today when trade is no longer dependent on rivers Prince George continues to be place of confluences, serving as the meeting point of Highway 97 headed north-south and Highway 16 going east-west, not to mention an international airport and multiple railways. Having worked for centuries before, “people of the confluence” certainly would have worked for the century since.
Yes, the village was burned. And the people responsible were pretty open about it, too. On September 6, 1913, the Fort George Herald proclaimed:
“The old Indian village, a few hundred yards up the Fraser river from this town, will soon be a mass of smoldering ruins. Already the houses at the north end of the village have been burned to the ground to give way to the utilization of the land upon which they have stood for years gone by, for the purposes of the dominant race which has purchased their reserve for the future site of a great city…”
“With the departure of the last of the tribe from their old haunts here, the torch of the white men will be thrust into the remaining houses and the village will disappear quietly in a cloud of smoke and sparks. Even the churches of the Indians will be burned, the sacred ornaments and the bell dedicated to their missionary priests being removed to the beautiful church on reserve No. 2.”
The article itself makes reference to a brand-new reservation given to “the Indians” and that their old village site at the Fraser and Nechako had been “purchased”. The reality of both these things is far less rosy. I’ve spoken to a number of people who’ve researched this purchase using both written records and oral histories and been told the “purchase” of the land was iffy at best. As for the new reserve, well, the Lheidli arrived to find incomplete houses and little help. As band member and former councillour Rena Zatorksi says in the audio below, it is still considered by many to be a forced relocation.
And that wasn’t the end of it. I won’t go into a full century of injustices, but a sampling might include the young Lheidli men who went to fight for Canada in World War II but upon arrival home were not eligible for the aid other veterans received, the fact Lheidli members and other First Nations could not vote in provincial elections until 1949 or federal elections until 1960, or the history of the residential schools, now coming to light through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (by the way, the TRC Executive Summary provides an excellent overview of the injustices afforded to Canada’s First Nations, and you can get a version for your Kindle, Kobo or smartphone here).
But that’s not the history I grew up with. To the extent we learned anything about Prince George’s history, it’s that it was discovered by explorers and fur traders, grew because of the lumber industry, and today is a growing northern capital. The Lheidli may have been mentioned here or there, but never in great detail.
In fact, nothing much about Prince George’s history was relayed to me in school. I was taught plenty about feudal society in the Middle Ages, about John A Macdonald and the founding of Canada, about Shakespeare and the Outsiders and the Treaty of Versailles, but anything of local concern: virtually nil. And like Wayne Johnston’s protagonist having the map of England imprinted on his mind, I was imprinted with the culture and history of somewhere else. I believed, as so many people from small towns and cities are led to believe, that life happens elsewhere, that to succeed would, by definition, mean going elsewhere to where important things happen. And again, this wasn’t done maliciously by teachers or family or an outside agenda, it was more of a self-evident truth: if important things happened here, surely we would hear about it, since we don’t… they must not.
Maybe that would have been different if I ever heard the term “Lheidli” growing up. At the very least, asking what the word meant would give me a baseline knowledge, the way an entire generation knows Canada means “the village… the people!”
And from there, maybe a conversation about what happened to the first people of the confluence, and a more nuanced understanding of the history of this place, not just of the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous people, but of the development of the railway, of the mayors and councillours and businesspeople making these decisions, in short: a better knowledge of who we are and where we come from, good and bad.
Instead, this is the typical conversation about the city’s origins:
“Why is it called Prince George?”
“Um, I think it was after King George? Or maybe an actual Prince George?”
“Did they ever come here?”
“No.”
Our name, disconnected from anything having to do with our history, is a missed opportunity to explore our origins, to spark knowledge and curiousity and even pride of place. Instead, it’s just a reminder that there are important people who get places named after them, and those people don’t come here.
So let’s talk about city councillour Murry Krause’s proposal to replace the name of “Fort George Park” with “Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park”.
As he says in this interview (also embedded below), the city’s main civic park is actually located on the site of the Lheidli village that was burned to the ground in 1913, and is still the site of the Lheidli burial grounds.
While a portion of those grounds have been marked off and protected, other human remains are simply buried in the park itself. Over the years, development in the park has unearthed bones of Lheidli ancestors some of whom died naturally, others who died of measles and small pox epidemics after first contact. The word “memorial,” suggested by the Lheidli themselves, is a way of recognizing that past. “They were there long before Europeans came,” Krause says. “It really is a way of acknowledging that.” Chief Dominick Frederick of the Lheidli stresses the renaming isn’t about blaming or dredging up past hurts, but acknowledging what came before.
The reaction to this proposal has been mixed. While many are celebrating it, many others are upset. They feel it erases their past, their memories of the park growing up, of the city’s origins as a fort.
I understand people’s attachment to the past. I, too, have fond memories of playing on the fire engine, using the swings, and throwing frisbees. But I don’t feel returning this historic name undoes that. For every person worried a name change would erase the history of Fort George, I wonder how much they know of the history that was erased in order to make this park — of the changed names, the forgotten bones, the attempted elimination of a people and culture through a combination of relegation and assimilation.
In a Facebook post that’s been shared over 150 times, Mike Gouchie writes
“I seldom have a public opinion or comment, but in the case of renaming Fort George Park, it hits close to home… (pun totally intended!)
I have several generations of family members buried in “Ft. George Park”, including my Great Grandmother Lizette Seymour “Blind Granny”, whom lived with my family and I for most of my childhood and teenage years!
Blind Granny lived to the age of 103 years (possibly older?), but unknown due to the fact age documents weren’t created for First Nations until government took over. Children weren’t registered until they were baptized and at times they could’ve already been up to 10 years old. Blind Granny would’ve been 120 (registered age) on this June 16th, 2015. She was baptized in 1895 and was about 5 years old at the time. (Which would make her that much older)
Was June 16th her true birthdate? Probably not, just the day she was baptized…
She told truths about days gone by, cried about sickness that outsiders brought to the Village. Blind Granny recalled her parents and people being dead all around her when she was a little girl. This was “The Bad Flu” brought in by Settlers… “Death, nothing but death”, she said, while weeping!
She was born in her Village (known today as Fort George Park).
It was her Village, her home! It had no name, it was not a reserve… It was her people’s rightful territory!Fort George Park was named long after the territory was taken over by government, huts burned out, First Nations People being forced to move onto the reserves outside of Prince George (now known as Lheidli T’enneh), fur traders coming and going and Government ultimately taking over the “Lheidli People’s” territory.
My father is buried in “Fort George Park” and “I” will be buried in “Fort George Park”!
My opinion was asked about what I though about renaming Fort George Park to The Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park, so here it is:
“I personally think it is a well overdue, great idea! It would warm my heart to see “at least” the Grave Yard my family and community members are buried in, (and where I will ultimately call my final resting place), have some noticeable memorial signage over it recognizing it’s original people”.
For myself, although it’s been Fort George Park all of my life…. Fort George is only a reminder of what it now is, nothing of what it once was.
To me “personally” Fort George is just a glorified name that has no meaning to myself, my family, or my ancestors.
It is truly only a reminder of losing our rightful territory and all the pain and suffering that went along with it.
So, Prince George is celebrating 100 years….
My Blind Granny would’ve been approximately 125 years old. She recalled the days prior to, during, and after “Fort George”.
Blind Granny was alive into my early 20’s and is still a major inspiration to me of overcoming, adapting, accepting, and conquering obstacles put in ones path!!
For those of you with the opinions of “get over it” and “move on”…
“WE HAVE”, more than you will ever truly understand!Open your minds, open your hearts and open a book!
“Educate yourselves or forever let ignorance rule your world”.
Mussi Cho,
Mike Gouchie
In a passage from the Truth and Reconciliation report, the words of Elder Stephen Augustine and the importance of silence are relayed: “Reconciliation cannot occur without listening, contemplation, meditation, and deeper internal deliberation.”
So with that I would simply encourage people, upset about hearing of this name change, to take a moment to listen to what it means to the Lheidli themselves, their history and present. And to contemplate what it might mean for the rest of us who love this place to define ourselves not by foreign royals but by where we are and who we are, and what we can be. And finally to reflect on how, in the scheme of things, the name of a park might not be that important- and yet have all the importance in the world.
Further reading: Lheidli T’enneh Cemetery, Prince George: A Documented History
So Buzzfeed just launched a Canadian version of its website. I think Buzzfeed is an interesting model, and have high expectations for the site to cover serious Canadian topics in unique and interesting ways.
But I also expect it to come up with a lot of lists, quizzes, and clickbait that is pretty much what you would expect if you heard someone was making a Canadian version of a site with a reputation for lists, quizzes, and clickbait. And so far I’m right! So without further ado, I present:
13 Times the Canadian Version of Buzzfeed Was *SO* the Canadian Version of Buzzfeed
Amongst the response to Murry Krause’s proposal (that, I’m told, comes through the Lheidli T’enneh) to change the name of Fort George Park are people upset about money being wasted/worried about the cost.
Fortunately, Prince George just went through this two weeks ago, when the Prince George Naturalists asked for “Hudsons Bay Slough” to be renamed “Hudson’s Bay Wetland” for a combination of grammatical and PR purposes. The question of cost was raised and the answer… it’s virtually nothing. So it was done, and just over a week later a new sign was up, and basically no one noticed.
Listen to the exchange below:
By the way, the cost of letting the taxpayer vote on this, as some people have suggested, would be far, far higher.
Councillour Murry Krause suggests Fort George Park be renamed:
“The renaming of Fort George Park to Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park commemorates, in a respectful way, a troubling time in our City’s history when Lheidli T’enneh people were forcibly removed from their land. The inclusion of the word memorial in the proposed name change acknowledges the presence of the Lheidli T’enneh Burial Grounds in the park. The cemetery is all that remains of the village that was destroyed in 1913. The permanent presence of their flag appropriately recognizes the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation as a level of government and is a reminder that this is the traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh people.”
The proposal has the support of Lheidli T’enneh chief Dominic Frederick, and would include permanently raising the Lheidli T’enneh flag in front of city hall. If council supports it, the renaming would happen June 21 (National Aboriginal Day).
Seems like a nice middle ground in the debate over the wholesale renaming of Prince George that still finds a way to draw attention to the actual history of this place. And for more on that history and just how troubled it is, see “Even the churches of the Indians will be burned” and “Burn Your Village to the Ground (100 Years Since Lheidli)“.
Also:
Dzuhoonhdi Whuzadel (Let’s stop ignoring where we are)
Lheidli T’enneh (Where I Live)
Two writers I respect, Wab Kinew and âpihtawikosisân, have made a fairly simple suggestion: if you’re going to have an opinion on the Truth and Reconciliation Project of Canada’s report on residential schools, you should probably read at least part of it at some point. I, personally, am making it my summer reading project.
The problem is, the thing is available for free online, but it’s in pdf format. That’s fine for a computer, but on other devices it’s a bit of a mess.
So I’ve converted it to Kindle’s .azw format, as well as the .epub format used for iBooks on Apple devices, Google Books, Kobo, and others.
Some of the formatting is a bit off, and the images aren’t as nice, but overall it works. You can read the report wherever, and take notes and highlight passages of text.
UPDATE, JUNE 2021
My original links expired but unfortunately the need for people to read these is as high as ever. I have redone these but I also wanted to let you know how I did this: Using the Calibre Library tool, just in case this expires again, or you want to convert other reports from the Commission available here.
Other formats or links I should add? Message me.
TRC Final Report Executive Summary
Mobi (older Kindle models): Drive; Dropbox
azw3 (newer Kindle models): Drive; Dropbox
ePub (Apple, Android, Kobo): Drive; Dropbox
If you are an oral learner, here is YouTube playlist of volunteers reading the report:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxPr_RIsvg9JJWoiRx2kl2v24r_pu7JbR
And here are audio versions created by the National Network for Equitable Library Service:
At the risk of sounding like an old man, why is 2015 such a rough year for music? Compared to previous years, I find myself putting very little in the way of new tunes on repeat listening.
Looking at my favourite songs of 2013, at least three quarters were released by June . About half of my favourites of 2014 came out during the first five months. In 2015, there are maybe three songs so far that I can say, unequivocally, will make my year-end list ((“I Really Like You“, “Uptown Funk” and “FourFive Seconds“. And yes, I’m aware these are all Big. Pop. Songs. which I’ve always liked, but it is odd to me that there isn’t anything outside of there on here)). More damning, they are the only three that would have a chance of making my top 20 had they been released any other year in the past decade.
The way I see it, there are a few possible reasons behind this:
Option one: There isn’t that much good music in 2015.
This seems unlikely, but it is possible. In Vulture’s “Song of the Summer”contenders list they note that nothing so far major “oomph” this year in terms of being a clear summer jam. So maybe it is just a weak field.
Option two: There is good music, but I haven’t heard it
More likely. Compared to past years, I haven’t been all that diligent in keeping up with new releases. I used to have CBC Music and the Hype Machine on constant streams to catch not just the big hits, but the little gems that would often wind up being my favourites that never appeared on anyone else’s list. I’m going back and listening to their charts from the year to see if I’m just missing out, but so far there’s not all that much promise.
Option three: Streaming music is destroying my ability to love songs that don’t immediately grab me
Also more likely. Once upon a time, I would listen to the radio and the songs they played would slowly grow on me. And I would buy CDs, and the songs on them would slowly grow on me. With on-demand, if a song doesn’t immediately give me a reason to come back, I can hit skip and never hear it again. Although I would have thought the effects of this would have reared their head earlier (I’ve been streaming music for years now), maybe I’ve hit a point of music saturation that’s finally affecting my ability to let new songs grow on me over time.
Option four: I’m getting old, yo
According to a new study, people stop listening to music at age 33. I’m not quite there, but maybe my inability to get into new stuff is just part of the irreversible passage of time. I’ve spent a decade and a half as a voracious music lover, building up a collection of tunes that it would takes months of continuous listening to even get through. Maybe I’m hitting a point of diminishing returns where it’s harder for new stuff to grab my attention because it sounds less new, less original, and less fresh then it did when I was an impressionable fifteen-year-old. Eventually I’ll just sit around listening to Beyoncé and Kanye West and the White Stripes, wondering why teenagers these days don’t “get” real music. My Rdio playlists will never change, except things like alternate mixes on the 30th anniversary edition of Long.Live.A$AP.
In the scheme of things, not getting into new music isn’t a big deal and I certainly have no problem with getting old. But music discovery has been a big part of my life for years now, and listening to playlists from the past are great little memory markers for me, taking me back to the years I made them, or even into the moments when I first heard a new favourite song. So I will be playing with how I listen, giving more repeats to tracks that seem to be a little subtler, and making sure to keep casting a wide net for listening. And if you have thoughts/music discovery suggestions/favourite tracks/whatever, leave a comment below.
“You don’t want to sound like a reporter, you want to sound like a regular person. So use the word ‘like’, like… like a lot.”
Lots of nuggets of gold in this three-and-a-half minutes, including overlong pauses, only uses people’s first names, and sponsors who deliver “baskets full of websites to your front door.” Honestly, I feel like there are a few This American Life/Radiolab/Serial-style crutches such as these that are getting overused- and parody is a good way to draw more attention to them.
“We call upon Canadian journalism programs and media schools to require education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations.”
– Call To Action #86, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
(p. 345)
Of all the courses I took during my undergraduate degree, the ones I’m most grateful for those are those focused on indigenous and Aboriginal issues (for lack of a better word) both in Canada and around the world. It’s given me a valuable understanding of the historical, legal, social and political contexts surrounding so many stories in modern Canada, from energy and land rights to the recently-released Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. I’m no expert, but at least I have a base to build on.
Whether or not it’s required, I heartily recommend anyone interested in working in Canadian journalism give themselves decent base understanding of the Aboriginal experience. It’s been extremely useful in my job, and I would put it up there with an understanding of Parliamentary democracy and the basics of the legal system as “things you hope journalists sort of know”. It is our job to reflect what is happening in Canada to Canadians, and if we only have a hazy understanding of “First Nations” as some sort of homogenous group of protesters, I’d argue we’re failing to do the best we can do.
To this end, let me direct your attention to the website Reporting in Indigenous Communities, a project from UBC journalism professor and CBC reporter Duncan McCue. It explores some of the common mistakes and clichés made by journalists covering indigenous issues in Canada. For a sample, here’s part of the site’s “Reporter’s Checklist“:
“Are you looking beyond pow-wows, cultural gatherings, and National Aboriginal Day for story ideas?
“Do you have a database of Aboriginal contacts, and a banking system to catalog research and ideas for future stories?
“Is there a way to include Aboriginal people in your “non-Aboriginal” stories?”
It’s humbling to take a look at the news cycle to see how often this checklist is overlooked. The end game here is an understanding of the diversity of indigenous people in Canada, both as political entities and as individuals whose identity goes beyond “token Aboriginal”. Like all that is worthwhile we may not always succeed, but the least we can do is try.
A message from CBC Daybreak North:
“This morning, a big THANK YOU to our listeners. Once again, Daybreak North is the NUMBER ONE radio show in Prince George northern British Columbia, and CBC is the most-listened to radio station all day and all week. On any given morning nearly 1/3 of radios in cars, homes, offices are tuned in to us, and we’re honoured to wake up with you. We love the north, and we’re glad the north likes us back. Thanks for listening.”
In Spring 2014, CBC Radio as whole has a 23.8% share of listeners in Prince George- that’s seven days a week, all day. And when Daybreak North is on we have an unbelievable 31.8% audience share. We’ve been sitting at number one for a while now, but this is the first time we’ve increased our share three years in a row, and the first time I’ve ever seen a station crack the thirties. It’s humbling.
Over the past couple of days I’ve been reminded of the joys of simply wandering around with a microphone and seeing who wants to talk to you. Here’s two little snippets I’ve gathered – they’re nothing earth-shattering, but they sure are fun to make.
Bill Phillips on the latest hire at city hall, Rob van Adrichem from UNBC:
“Give them credit for hiring locally. That’s two in a row, as city manager Kathleen Soltis was named Beth James’ successor earlier this year.
“Mayor Lyn Hall and the new council elected last fall, wasted no time in getting rid of former city manager Beth James and erasing James’ fingerprints on the city. Communications manager Todd Corrigal left the city at the same time as James, although reasons for his departure were never disclosed. Several key staff members shown the door by James, have found their way back to the city.”
Given that six out of nine of the current city council was on the previous iteration (Hall included), I’m not sure how much sense it makes to be talking about a “new” council. But this doesn’t certainly seem to be a new era for the reasons Phillips lays out – more interest in using local talent at city hall, including some names who were previously taken off the organizational charts.
I’m also told that one of van Adrichem’s first jobs will be to help organize community meetings. One of Hall’s election promises was to bring city call out to the neighbourhoods, with meetings in College Heights, the Hart, and other places outside the core, in order to make things more accessible. It will be interesting to see how far this goes towards erasing the perceived disconnect between city hall and the city, and how it plays out at the next election.
As an aside, with the loss of Ben Meisner’s views on city hall at 250 News and Bill Phillips’ editorial space at the Prince George Free Press, it certainly is nice that Phillips has found a space at 250 News.
Dear Vancouver,
I understand you’re going through a bit of a phase. It seems the Economist magazine described you as “mind-numbingly boring” recently and, well, you didn’t take it well. Not just the mayor, but the premier, have had to comfort you, and commentators have penned pieces firing back, even at the magazine itself.
First of all, let me just observe that this feels like the scene where the straight-A student has a minor meltdown because they get a C in gym class or something. I mean, you’re consistently ranked one of the best places in the world to live and here you are freaking out because of literally two sentences in a minor masthead. Speaking as someone where this
was prominently printed in a national magazine, I’ll admit it’s hard to take your concerns all that seriously. But let me be the John Bender to your Claire Standish and teach you how to handle it when a magazine calls you a bad name.
Step one: don’t lash out
We might be a little late on this one, but it’s worth remembering: you’ll never get better if you don’t think there’s anywhere to improve. When Maclean’s called Prince George the most dangerous city in Canada, people got upset. We tried things like changing the parameters. Sure, we might have more crime per capita than anywhere else said the mayor (paraphrasing), but the important thing is how many volunteers we have!
I’m not arguing, having volunteers is great, but if crime is an issue it doesn’t really solve things. Likewise, just because you think the Economist is boring, it doesn’t mean you have more places for garage bands to practice their new songs. Look inward. Is there something you could be doing better? If not, great. But if there is, try and improve it.
Prince George being most dangerous had to do with a number of other factors (including overflow from gang jostling down in Vancouver), but the RCMP and city started looking at what they could do better and through a variety of outreach and strategic programs, things turned around and there has been a decline in serious crimes. And we still have lots of volunteers.
The point is this: you’re a big city. You’re going to receive some criticism. That matters less than how you handle it.
Step two: recognize you probably care about this waaaay more than anyone else does
Honestly, I’m not sure I would have even heard about this thing if it weren’t for Vancouverites collectively freaking out about it. Do you really think that people are going to stop coming to the seawall based on this thing? It’s the same deal with Prince George. The first year we were called most dangerous, there was a big news conference and days of press. Second time, similar reaction, but more muted. By the time the third year came around, the city basically shrugged its shoulders. Now the ranking has gone away. Last year, Initiatives Prince George asked people across Canada what comes to mind when they hear “Prince George” and, yeah, “crime” was on there but so was “friendly” and “community”. It’ll be OK.
Step three: haters gonna hate
It’s time to make like Taylor Swift and shake if off. Over the last few years, various community organizations have embarked on campaigns showcasing the benefits of coming here. And rather than target people who are thinking to themselves “geez, Prince George is so dangerous” they’re looking for people who are interested in the lifestyle Prince George has to offer.
Put it this way: ever go to a party where everyone’s having a good time except that one dude going on about what a terrible party it is? Why try and change his mind? Whenever someone comes at me about how they would never want to live in Prince George it’s like great! I won’t have to deal with you! If “Gulliver” doesn’t want to come to Vancouver, who’s really losing out?
Step four: make your own headlines
Prince George got national media coverage again this year when it hosted the 2015 Canada Winter Games. People from all across the country came to the city to discover that not only did they not get stabbed, they had a pretty OK time, too! Already, more major events are showing interest in the city because of what was pulled off earlier this year, and national press showcased a side of Prince George most of the rest of Canada had never seen.
So get at it Vancouver! Show the world you know how to party. Is there maybe some sort of major international sporting event you could hold next winter? Something like maybe the- oh, you did that already?
Hm.
Well, maybe you can get the royal family to name a baby after you or something.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Last night, about a dozen people took two-and-half hours to tell city council they are adamantly opposed to an RV sales lot being built on the site of a former golf course. They were worried about traffic, light, and the overall character of the neighbourhood being ruined. They were also upset that they hadn’t been consulted on this earlier.
Councillour Garth Frizzell asked staff what sort of consultation had actually taken place.
“There are several points in the process where there’s consultation sought from the neighborhood,” replied Walter Babicz, general manager of administrative services. They were:
And yet person after person after person said they hadn’t heard about this proposed change until the last minute.
NOW. Let me be clear: I am not saying city staff didn’t do their job (in fact, it sounds like they went beyond what was required). I am also not 100% positive that what I am about to say is true. This is just my working theory as to why there might be this disconnect where the city does all these consultations with citizens, and citizens say they weren’t consulted:
There’s a difference between consultation and engagement.
Here’s a look at some of the steps that were taken to consult people. Here’s one of the ads in the Citizen:
Here’s the letter that was sent out:
I’m not positive what the sign looked like, but here’s an example of your average bylaw change notification sign (here’s one for a liquor store):
Upon reading these things you can, I think, parse what’s going on. But the question worth asking is whether they want to be read. How much effort is being made in attracting attention as people sort through their mailboxes, scan the newspaper, and drive to work? Do these jump out, or do they fade into the background?
I write for a living, and I can tell you it isn’t always easy to stick to plain language. I sympathize with the challenge it presents. But I can also tell you that if I’m wanting to get someone’s attention I don’t lead with words like “amendment”, “facilitate” and bylaw codes. Those are the things that make people’s eyes glaze over and ears turn off.
I’ve cited before and I’ll cite again Dave Meslin’s TedX talk “The Antidote to Apathy,” about precisely this topic. Meslin says expecting people to get engaged in civic politics by posting notifications like these is akin to Nike trying sell shoes with ads like this:
He proposes a better public notification from city planning departments would look something like this:
This new sign clearly illustrates what’s happening, and what you can do to voice your opinion.
“But wait!” I hear you say. “People did show up! The process works!”
Well, yes, although a number of residents said they didn’t know about the process at all until they saw this sign (photo by Brent Braaten):
Compare that sign to the ads posted by the city. There’s a clear call to action (stop bylaw-8642). There is a map that actually shows the geography of the place, rather than abstract squares with lot numbers on them. There is a picture of RVs, indicating what is being proposed visually, not just in form of small text. There are clear labels pointing to how the traffic patterns would be affected. Somebody is making an effort to get people to understand what is going on here.
Was the proposal a good idea? I’m not commenting on that. I’m simply suggesting that if the city of Prince George would like to avoid future meetings where staff tells them the community was consulted and then the community tells them they weren’t, they may want to look into why that gap exists.
Further viewing: Dave Meslin – The antidote to apathy
Ad nauseam
twitter
tumblr
linkedin
facebook
flickr
medium
instagram
google +
foursquare
quora
pinboard
* Views expressed in this blog are my personal opinion, and do not reflect the views of any of my
employers,
clients,
or pets.
Full Disclaimer→
Original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License.
For more information visit https://andrewkurjata.ca/copyright.
Powered by WordPress using a modified version of the DePo Skinny Theme.
June 20 2015 | ∞
Aboriginal women and girls are more likely to be killed, but spouses or family members are less likely to be involved than in the homicides of other Canadian females. But that’s not in the headlines.
(Note: I’ve updated and clarified the rate of family involvement in the section labelled “asterisk two”)
On Friday afternoon, the RCMP delivered an update on their work on missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada.
Afterwards, here’s what the headlines said.
(CTV, CBC, and the Globe and Mail)
I want to talk about why these headlines can be misleading.
The context
There are a number of Canadians calling for a national inquiry into the number of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada (#MMIW is the hashtag on Twitter), and the Harper government isn’t interested, preferring to treat these cases the same as as any other crimes. Last year, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt told the Ottawa Citizen that Aboriginal communities have to take a greater responsibility for MMIW:
So there’s a backdrop to this – a debate over whether MMIW are a national issue to be tackled by a federal initiative, or something more domestic. The media plays a role in shaping the public understanding and conversation around these issues.
Asterisk one: this only applies to cases that have been solved
I’m going to start with the headline from the Globe and Mail proclaiming that “All native women killed in past 2 years knew their killer” because that one is unknowable, and very possibly out-and-out false. The exact statistic is that Aboriginal women knew their killer in 100% of the cases that have been solved in the last two years. With 32 new homicides in 2013-14, there are still 6 unsolved cases where the victims may or may not have known their killer. To say “all native women knew their killer” misrepresents the information. Update: the Globe has now changed their headline to read “Native violence starts at home“).
Asterisk two: Aboriginal women homicides are less likely to involve spouses or family than non-Aboriginal homicides
While other headlines didn’t focus on the “knew their killer” angle, there is a focus on the “family violence” and “someone they knew” angle. While these angles are true, they are still worth examining.
Of the 26 solved homicides involving Aboriginal women in 2013-14, family members or past or current spouses were involved in 73 per cent of the cases.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the numbers for non-Aboriginal women for the same years, but the report does outline the rates from 1980-2012, which you can see in the graph below:
Offender-to-victim relationship, female homicides, 1980-2012
In that time period, past/present spouses, family members, or “other intimates” were involved in 62 percent of the homicides of Aboriginal women so, yes, it is fair to say there is a link. But those numbers are even higher for non-Aboriginal women, where spouses/family/intimates are involved in a full 74 percent of the cases.
So while it is accurate to say there is a link between the deaths of Aboriginal women and their families/home life, it is inaccurate to imply that that linkage is higher amongst Aboriginals than it is in mainstream society, or that the higher homicide rate among Aboriginal women is entirely attributable to family violence.
Note: In an earlier version of this, the language I used in this section was Aboriginal women and girls are less likely to be killed by spouses/family. However, given that Aboriginal females are homicide victims at 4x the rate of other females in Canada, it means that even though a lower percentage of those homicides involve spouse/family/intimate, there are still more Aboriginal women who are victims of those forms of death than other women – basically, Aboriginal women are more likely to be homicide victims by any means, simply because they are more likely to be homicide victims. However, the likelihood that spouse/family/intimates are involved in any given homicide increases if the victim isn’t Aboriginal.
Asterisk three: “acquaintance”
The category where Aboriginal women are represented at levels of more than one percent higher than non-Aboriginal women is in deaths associated with “acquaintances”. And once again, let’s read the fine-print, in this case a literal footnote from the report:
That’s a pretty broad category that includes people that you see taking out the trash, a grocery store clerk you see on a semi-regular basis and, as was pointed out in the news conferences, sex workers who “know” their johns:
Under that definition, here’s a few examples of Aboriginal women who knew their killer:
When Loretta Saunders went to collect rent from her subletters, she knew her killers:
When Natasha Montgomery and Cynthia Maas, respectively, encountered Cody Legebokoff for the last time, they knew their killer:
And when sex worker Cindy Gladue met Bradley Barton a second time, she knew him:
So when the headline says “Aboriginal women most frequently killed by someone they knew”, it’s true, but it’s also important to understand just how broad that definition is.
Why this matters
Many people get their news from headlines, even if they don’t read the articles. Want proof this happens? Last year, NPR posted an article asking “why don’t people read anymore?” only to have many, many people on Facebook and Twitter tell them that this isn’t true, they read all the time. The trick? The article itself was actually an April Fool’s prank testing to find out how many people would respond to the headline without reading the text.
I myself have had the experience (many times) of writing or posting a piece online only to have people respond or ask questions in a way that makes it abundantly clear they didn’t actually read the article, they were making assumptions about the world based on the headlines.
And even in cases where people read the articles, headlines shape the way those articles are read. Studies have found that even when the information in an article contradicts the articles headline, the headline plays a major role in what people remember after reading the article.
As I said at the outset, these stories are being written against the backdrop of a very public debate about Canada’s relationship with indigenous communities. We just had the Truth and Reconciliation report that, among other things, called on media to more accurately reflect the experience of Aboriginal people. We have calls for an inquiry into MMIW in Canada. And we have these statistics:
Using the most recent statistics, Aboriginal women and girls are more than four times more likely to be killed than non-Aboriginals. As a proportion of female homicides overall, the number is climbing. When Aboriginal women are killed, it is less likely to be by a spouse, family member, or other intimate than it is for non-Aboriginal women.
Ask yourself: is that story being told in the headlines?
Filed under: Indigenous, media | Discussion