I just got an email asking me to sign a petition demanding that British Columbia stop old growth logging. I’m not Canadian let alone British Columbian so I don’t know what weight my signature carries if any, but I signed it anyway.
The text of the website uses the phrase “so- called Canada”, and I’m wondering what this means. Is it a current usage in the activist community intended to signal general disapproval or rejection of national policy, much like the way “Amerika” or “Amerikkka” has been used south of the border?
There’s been a push on in Canada to refer to a lot of places as “un-ceded Native lands”, and re-naming things with Native names. I suspect this is the silly activist version of that.
The wiki certainly explains that STAND.earth & the then-government of Canada were at loggerheads.
How the epithet “so-called Canada” figures into it isn’t obvious to me. I could happily accept them saying “supposedly environmentally conscious Canada”, or similar phrasings implying Canada is talking the talk but failing utterly at walking the walk. I don’t see how “so-called Canada” does that.
Now if what STAND.earth really means is that Canada itself, and thereby its government, is fundamentally illegitimate it makes more sense. IOW, if their idea is “Shut it down, chase out all the whites and other immigrants since 1700, and give it all back to the First Nations”, then it makes logical sense. A silly idea, but at least logically coherent. But I don’t see them pushing that agenda at all.
Apropos of nothing other than people’s curiosity about the strangest things I guess, but 44 people (or 45? your own click doesn’t seem to increase the number count in my experience) clicked the link and the thread only has 146 views at the time of my writing this.
Oh, and +1 to @LSLGuy not seeing an obvious reason for the chosen epithet.
There’s a similar effort here to rename Lane County Oregon in honor of the indigenous Kalapuya tribe. Among other requirements the name change would have to be approved by voters, which I think would happen. I doubt many people care that much about Joseph Lane
Could be worse. The changed the next line in O Canada to mangle the grammar, from:
True patriot love,
In all our sons’ command…
To this: , in all of us command.
Huh? That’s what happens when someone doesn’t understand the language but wants to correct it.
They could have gone with “all of our command” or “all that we command” but no…
Brings to mind the discussion about
Q: “What do Canadians do before any major public event?”
A: “Acknowledge they are on treaty land and then carry on what they were doing anyway.”
