for - leverage points - to - paper - Leverage Points - places to intervene in a system - Donella Meadows - https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdonellameadows.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuserfiles%2FLeverage_Points.pdf&group=world

via https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1iqn5hs/comment/mdakb8r/

for - essay - Leverage Points - Places to Intervene in a System - Donella Meadows

https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000231472/great-barrier-reef-zeigt-ein-grossteil-der-korallen-der-welt-ist-verloren

for - building new sustainable cities

summary - Building new "sustainable cities from nothing often does not consider the embodied energy required to do so. When that is considered, it is usually not viable - A context where it is viable is where there is extreme poverty and inequality

to - Why do old places matter? - sustainability - https://hyp.is/vlBLGlQFEe-EpqflmmlqnQ/savingplaces.org/stories/why-do-old-places-matter-sustainability

for - agriculture was invented in at least a dozen places around the world

Alludes to the eventual two years of conflict which would erupt between the British and the Mi'kmaq due to the settlement and maintenance of Halifax.

This passage refers to both practical and religious claims towards ownership and thus implies that the British are both legally and morally at fault for settling Halifax.

Shows both the great significance of Kjipuktuk as a site of heritage as well as one of the last unadulterated river basins in Mi'kma'ki thus representing one of the last access points to the riverways which the Mi'kmaq were reliant on.

Specifically referring to the trading posts and forts of Mi'kma'ki as a loan from one sovereign to another and thus able to be revoked.

This goes against the common bias that Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous groups traveled and never had settlements or communities they called home. This helps combat that misconception by showing how ancestors and therefore descendants have claim to certain areas, which is similar to what the European nations were familiar with

The French loss of Port Royal to the English would occur multiple times and was a sign of the tenuous control the French actually maintained over their colony of Acadie, but also illuminates how the British were unable to establish long-term bases of power while the French and their allies the Mi'kmaq controlled the inland forts and rivers.

Highlights how little actual power European's controlled over inland Mi'kma'ki as well as alludes to the reliance of early Europeans on friendly relations with the Mi'kmaq to maintain their presence in the territory.

This shows the Mi'kmaq commitment to peace and their tireless attempts to have their territorial claims respected so a peaceful coexistence can be met

In the other document, it stated that trade between the Indigenous and the British would be regulated under the Massachusetts government. In this document, it states that they now have full permission to hunt and fish as they please. This could be an indication of the British recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, while also benefitting from Indigenous trade.

garrisons and houses were set up by the British which the Penobscot wanted to be removed, which would show them the true nature of peace boasted by the British. In 1736 St George would later be taken over by the British against the Penobscot's wishes. In the article the British state they do not want to give up the houses, and that they will remain trading hubs, under the promise of peace and amity. They are using this as a way to retain what they want most while framing it as an act of assurance, which we know later to not be true.

This paragraph explains that the Mi'kmaq people were very open to the French settling in Port Royal, however they felt that the french are now starting to take over and it is effect the way of living for the Mi'Kmaq people people, they did not like that they wee being forced to take refuge on their own land.

The British expansion and establishment of Halifax (Kjipuktuk) in 1749 resulted in 2 years of conflict and hostility between them and the Mi’kma’ki people. This later culminated in the signing of a treaty in 1752. Feelings of hostility however did not conclude.

The Mi'kmaw leaders emphasise the central importance of Kjipuktuk (as discussed in our introductory video) and the fact that the British are driving their nation from all portions of Mi'kma'ki. This is used to justify Mi'kmaw resistance to both the British presence in Mi'kma'ki and to British expansion in this region.

The Mi'kmaw leaders are referring to the partition of Mi'kma'ki under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) by the British and French Crowns.

They are also asserting their opposition to this partition and the fact that the Mi'kmaq were not involved in these negotiations.

Kjipuktuk is the Mi'kmaw name for the newly christened settlement of Halifax. This British fort was established on the Mi'kmaw land known as Sɨpekne'katik.

The governor the letter is addressed to is named Edward Cornwallis (b. 1712-1776) and he held this position from 1749-1752.

This could either be reference to the village Shubénacadie or the region of Mi'kma'ki from which this village is named (i.e. Sipekne'katik).

The British do not appear to have any desire to recognise the claims to either sovereignty or land by the Mi'kmaq, Wabanaki, and their allies.

Given the geographic location of Halifax (Kjipuktuk) I would assume that the British are trying to isolate the Indigenous leaders and crush their resistance rather than negotiate with them in good faith.

Mr. Le Loutre appears to be stationed at the French Fort Beausejour which is situated directly across the isthmus from Fort Lawrence (to whom he is writing).

Mr. Le Loutre, if not the French as a whole, recognises the sovereignty of the Mi'kmaq (presumably the Wabanaki Confederacy and their allies as well) and that their lands both used to cover considerably more territory and require more territory than what they are asking for.

This territory which the Indigenous nations are asking for appears to again correspond to the territory claimed by the French in their map dated 1756 with the exception of the coast from Canceau to Antigonish (mostly the north-eastern quadrant of Eskikewa’kik).

This is all traditionally Mi'kma'ki lands which also happen to contain the most concentrated Acadian settlements on the mainland.

Copequid (i.e. Cobequit/Cobeguit) appears to be a settlement listed both on the British and French maps and lays on the eastern coast of the Basin of Minas. It is listed as French on the French map and British on the British map.

Bay Verte is adjacent to Fort Lawrence between the mainland of Acadie/Mi'kma'ki and that of Isle Royale (Epekwitk).

This sentence seems to confirm my suspicions that it is presently controlled by the British since Mr. Hussey is described as its present commander according to Mr. Le Loutre.

I tried to find this fort on the maps in Module 1 but was unable to find it. So I googled "Fort Lawrence" and discovered that it is presently a rural community named after the fort in the isthmus between modern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (via Google Maps).

When I reviewed the maps in Module 1 using this geographic knowledge, I discovered that the British Map listed this fort as "usurped by the French" while the French Map listed them as "Forts Anglois" (English Forts).

Given that both of these maps were printed after this letter was written (1755 and 1756 respectively) I assume that the Fort is still controlled by the British.

Could this be referring to Canso Island? It was a site of Mi’kma’ki settlements long prior to the Utrecht treaty of 1713. This was a site of great dispute as the French sought to claim ownership as the British began to make settlements here, claiming it as part of Nova Scotia. The Mi’kma’ki saw this as an infringement on their territory, which, along with the sites along the rivers mentioned in the document along with the forts established by the British, would have culminated into a greater threat. It would also be the site of Mi’kma’ki resistance to British expansion.

I was under the impression that the Haudenosaunee, being traditionally allies of the British, were hostile to the Wabanaki Confederacy but this seems to refute my assumption.

These nations collectively cover most East Algonquin peoples living from Lake Ontario, through to Mi'kma'ki (albeit south of the St. Lawrence River).

These nations' traditional lands appear to correspond to the French claims along the southern bank of the St. Lawrence River contiguous with their claims in Acadie/Mi'kma'ki which are depicted on Lesson 1.2's French map "Carte de Possessions Françoises et Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane" (1756).

I reviewed the maps in Lesson 1 but was unable to find any village named Menaskek within the defined territories of the Abenaki nation (i.e. between the Kenibege and Peggakki rivers).

After performing a google search with the query "Menaskek", I found a website from the Maine Historical Society which stated that this settlement lay on Arrowsic island and corresponds to the English/US settlement of Georgetown.

I reviewed the maps and discovered both Georgetown and Arrowsic island at the mouth of the Kenibege river along the Atlantic coast. However, I did not find Menaskek listed there but the English equivalents appear to be documented in the British Map (1755).

https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/2976/page/4665/display?page=2

I found a village labelled as Norridgewaok along the Kennebec/Kenibege river near Schoogun Falls which looked similar to Nanrants-ak (A map of the British and French dominions in North America; 1755).

After searching google for French version of this name (Norridgewock in the modern English) I discovered that it is "Narrantsouac" and through this I found that the modern Algonquin spelling is "Nanrantsouak".

The French spelling appears similar enough in pronunciation to how I presume Nanrants-ak is pronounced to lead me to conclude that this is likely the settlement the author is referring to. Furthermore, the modern Algonquin spelling appears almost identical to the 18th century spelling but is missing the vowel "ou".

The author identifies the boundaries of the Abenaki nation as being the Kenibege/Kennebec river (separating them from the British-allied Haudenosaunee nation) and the Peggakki/Pigwaket River as well as the estuaries and islands which spring from this river.

The Abenaki also assert their right to regulate their border by commanding no Englishman to live within a league of the Peggakki River.

Two things spring to mind from these sentences. Firstly, that these lands had never been permanently occupied by the British and the Wabanaki use this legal concept to justify their sovereingty. (i.e. de facto control and domestic sovereignty).

Secondly, a major difference is expressed by the Wabanaki in this text. They explicity deny swearing fealty to the King of France (Louis XV) which might very well be true even if they had sworn an oath of fealty to Louis XIV prior to 1715.

From my understanding, under French monarchical law subjects required a renewal of their oath of fealty upon the succession of each monarch. The office of the monarch was not considered a legal person in the way which this office is/was considered under British law at the time. The oath was not to the office of the French monarch but the monarch themselves.

Hence, the Wabanaki argue that they are not bound to the French monarchy even if they had sworn fealty to Louis XIV in the past. So the present King cannot justify the land transfer as he is not sovereign over the Wabanaki.

It is not clear from this letter alone which fort the Wabanaki are referring to, but based on the British map from Lesson 1.2 "A map of the British and French dominions in North America" (1755) it may be Fort Brunswick which is situated south-east from the Pegepscut Falls and across the river from Topsam settlement.

I conclude this since it is the only fort documented on the British map which is situated on the bank of the Androscoggin/Anm-kangan river.

At this moment I have not been able to figure out which river the "Matsih-an-ssis" is in contemporary terms but with the assistance of a museum in New Brunswick I was able to determine that "Kenibekki" refers to the Abenaki name for the Kennebec River while "Anmirkangan" & "Anm-kangan" both refer to the Androscoggin river in the same language.

https://www1.gnb.ca/0007/Culture/Heritage/VMC/english.asp

This demonstrates Mi’kma’ki autonomy from the French crown. They are establishing themselves as their own council, able to make their own decisions in the face of their land being stolen at the hands of the British.

The Mi'kmaw leaders mention that they have taken some British captive and assert that they have been taken hostage in reaction to the British claiming the island of Canceau and Aldin.

The former of which is situated between Unama'kik (Isle Royale/Cape Breton) and Eskikewa'kik (North-Eastern Nova Scotia).

Aldon has been taken by the French at an indeterminate time. These Mi'kmaw leaders make a point to both differentiate themselves from the French and to insist that neither themselves nor the French are involved in each other's decision-making or in determining each other's interests in the region.

Mines is the name by which Sipekne'katik is known by the British and French. The settlement of Mines is North-East from Halifax/Kjipuktuk on the opposite coast of Mi'kma'ki/Acadie.

Wishing for the lands to be freed from British occupation, they claim that their livelihood and ability to reside on their lands are endangered by British settlements.

As the preface indicates, they are speaking of Sipekne'katik 29 years prior to the establishment of Fort Halifax in Kjipuktuk by the British. This would suggest that displacement of Mi'kmaq by British settlement preceded the establishment of Halifax.

The Mi'kmaw leaders, Antoine and Pierre Couaret, predicate their argument similary to that of the Mi'kmaw leaders in Kjipuktuk.

Namely, the Mi'kmaq have inhabited these lands since time immemorial and that God has granted them this land.

While the English "I have only joy to see" suggests that the French are presently establishing forts on the Abenaki rivers, I was suspicious of this conclusion so I reviewed the archival letter.

The original French text uses the term, "Je n'aurais que...je ne mettrais guéres", whose verbs are in the conditional mood and not the indicative.

So the Abenaki are really saying that they "would have only joy" and "would hardly be concerned" if the French would only establish forts on their rivers like they had in Mi'kma'ki.

It is to be seen whether the French Crown commits to this request by the Abenaki.

Port Royal is situated in the Mi'kmaw land of Kespukwitk and was formerly an Acadien-French settlement before being occupied and annexed by the English/British.

Given the Abenaki argument here, I would presume that their land was not occupied by the British during the War of the Spanish Succession. But it would appear that Mi'kmaq land was in fact occupied by the British during the war.

Due to prior English expansionism, the Abenaki's traditional lands had been limited to what is presumably a rump state. But even this diminished territory is at risk of annexation by the British after the Treaty of Utrecht.

The author also expresses incredulity at the fact that a treaty was signed without their knowledge or consent. Given that he states that the English informed him of this would suggest that the French did not inform the Abenaki of these diplomatic and political events.

great points here:

• physical holy places are: temples, chapels and homes

• intangible holy places are: moments we are in companionship of his spirit

the common denominator being: whenever we act outside of our natural inclinations (or our natural man), we enter a place of safety. when our eternal selves (spiritual man) is in domination, we are in a safe place

a courthouse that served as a dedicated court of quarter sessions, where criminal trials were held

a common name given to a building that houses the seat of local government for a county.

Miguel Hernán. (2021, February 15). To all who claim that there’s no evidence that #SARSCoV2 is transmitted in bars: If the risk of transmitting #SARSCoV2 is provenly greater in crowded indoor places, why should bars be magically protected? Burden of the proof is on bar’s owners, not on scientists @BillHanage [Tweet]. @_MiguelHernan. https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1361463022187864066

.

Dorset, Britain

France