The Inuit: Forgotten People in a Far-Off Environment PDF

THE INUIT Forgotten people in a “far off” environment  That we can only skim over material that we focus on instead, in other classes. ONCE AGAIN THE CASE THE DENE (GWICH’IN; SAHTU; DEH CHO; TLICHO; AND, AKAITCHO.) AND THE INUIT  Covered by two ecozones  Far North: (Arctic) tundra...

THE INUIT Forgotten people in a “far off” environment  That we can only skim over material that we focus on instead, in other classes. ONCE AGAIN THE CASE THE DENE (GWICH’IN; SAHTU; DEH CHO; TLICHO; AND, AKAITCHO.) AND THE INUIT  Covered by two ecozones  Far North: (Arctic) tundra: extreme cold, little vegetation, marine animal focus (polar bears, seals, walrus etc.) Subsistence: hunt; Economics: Reciprocity, Kinship: bilateral with a slight emphasis on patriline. Nuclear family.  Hudson Bay Lowland: (Sub Arctic) adjacent to tundra and includes northern Ontario and parts of northern Manitoba and Quebec. Trees (black spruce, tamarack), caribou herds, muskox, Arctic hare etc. THE NORTH  The Inuit, descendants of Beringian cultures; proto identifiable (6500BC)  Dorset culture first arises (originates/evolves) in Cape Dorset and Foxe Basin; did not migrate.  Odd transformation in that pre-Dorset highly skilled at making tools; and Dorset focussed only on the making of kayaks, relegating larger vessels to the past.  Appears to have been environmentally inspired – we see new adaptations such as:  Expert hunting of seals and walruses  Designed sleds for transport  Designed boots for “ice-walking”  Brilliant craftsmen: quartz microblades, jade chisels, soapstone lamps, stone turf winter housing, spectacular art. THE NORTH DORSET  2 periods – Early and Late  Middle: 100 – 600 CE:  Moved from Foxe basin to Ellesmere and Greenland, west to Victoria Island and south to Newfoundland; met Beothuk  As climate warmed, some Dorset groups moved further north to pursue the seals  Depicted in their artwork DORSET -  Ancestors of Inuit (Esquimaux – discuss)  Interacted with Dorset; discussion rages on whether or not they intermingled or killed Dorset off. (Dorset leaves the archaeological record around 1200 AD; however, some speculation that a pocket survived until 20th century on Hudson Bay) Thule retain multiple oral histories that tell the story of the “Tuniit” who were gentle and easily frightened. Scholars speculate that the Tuniit were the Dorset.  Skilled huntsmen  Designed the igloo  Erected the first (what we now recognize as) Inukshuk markers (stone cairns that assist travellers in orientation to wilderness, but also thought to relieve loneliness. THULE INUKSHUK  By 900, fully established throughout the Arctic  Spear and Toggle harpoons  Bow and arrow  Snow goggles  Pottery  ULU (all-purpose woman’s knife)  Moon shaped axe heads  Ironsmiths (lots of copper in Arctic)  Dogsledders  Invented the Umiak – long; large version of kayak – facilitated net fishing, whaling, seal and walrus hunting THULE THULE SNOW GOGGLES  In the 16th century we see Thule/Dorset who had moved further north, now moving south down the North Atlantic coast.  Met Frobisher in 1576-1578; obvious they were already familiar with Europeans THE THULE BECOME THE INUIT?  In order to prove to their monarchs that they had landed in such and such as place, explorers often kidnapped (or ‘persuaded’) indigenous peoples to travel back with them  Frobisher brought an Inuk hunter (his “token of possession”) to England, where he died.  Inuit maintained oral traditions of the encounter (kabloonas or Qallunaat) and preserved odds and ends of Frobisher’s visit – red brick; brass rings. PROOF OF “LANDING AND CLAIMING”  Not only proof of discovery, but had a more practical potential for some:  Captives could learn language of their captors and be used as interpreters and guides. KIDNAPPING  Closest sustained early contact between peoples of the eastern Arctic and Europeans.  Whaling began along Labrador coast and the Strait of Belle Isle – earliest contact between Inuit and Basque; later Inuit and French  Encounters introduced Europeans to Inuit whaling technology; (during 7th to 13th centuries, the most advanced in the world).  Led to worldwide expansion of whaling WHALING  By first 1/3 of 18th century, some Inuit working with European crews.  Expanded during the 1800s.  Whaling lasted until the first decade of 20th century.  Horrific reduction in whale stocks  Severely affected Inuit domestic offshore whaling and led to changes in subsistence patterns. WHALING 2  The Inuit are the indigenous peoples of almost half of the World’s Arctic.  They have many different names for themselves:  Inupiat in Alaska  Inuvialuit in the Mackenzie Delta  Inuit in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland  All these terms mean “people” or “real people”.  Until recently outsiders called them Eskimo, which is an Algonquin word for “eaters of raw meat”. WHICH NATION?  Their language is called Inuktitut in Canada. LANGUAGE  https://www.google.com/search?q=Inuit+Art&rlz=1T4VRHB_enCA 716CA717&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqlvz4m q_hAhXni1QKHR0YCgwQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=878 INUIT ARTISTIC TRADITIONS UNPARALLELED  More than any other Canadian INDG Nation, Canadian perceptions of who the Inuit are and how they live have been driven by popular culture.  Inuit in fact, boasted a complex political economy that enabled far more than simple survival in an incredibly harsh environment.  Inuit impact on Canada has been significant, not least with the creation of the APTN (Aboriginal Peoples Television Network); award winning film makers (Isuma Igloolik Productions) OUR PERCEPTIONS OF THE INUIT ARE DEEPLY FLAWED  Nunavut becomes Canada’s third territory. (took 25 years)  A fantastic size: 2 million square miles (20% of Canada’s land mass)  37,000 citizens; 83% Inuit or Inuit descent  26 communities across three time zones (communities range in size from 130 people to 6,699 people)  Features INDG self-government; ground up construction of political principles and institutional development  A cautionary tale however, about just how little Ottawa is willing to relinquish control over natural resource ownership and development and this has profound impacts on what the Inuit are able to do/achieve APRIL 1, 1999  For almost 60 years after Confederation, Inuit fell into a legislative void  They were not Indian under the Indian Act, nor were they full Canadian citizens  Under the first discovery of oil at Fort Norman (Tulita), this was considered perfectly fine from both Canadian and Inuit perspective – Inuit maintained their political economy with little interference, and Canada could ignore any Northern issues  Oil – the need to harvest it – changed all that and feds implemented a northern civil service, followed by waves of government and civilian employees. A FORGOTTEN PEOPLE (HERE)  Department of Indian Affairs assigned responsibility for the Inuit. Indian Act amended to reflect this.  Inuit have for years either been shoehorned into an “Indian” label or noted as wholly distinct from “Indians” due to their unique ecological context, which separated them socially, economically, and politically from other indigenous Nations.  So, in many ways, the Indian Act could not, and did not, apply.  In 1928, Inuit were transferred to the Department of the Interior, which relied on the RCMP to execute policies and ensure Inuit compliance with policies. 1924, 1928,  Inuit still being bounced around between Departments.  No longer in the Indian Act  However, in 1939, The Supreme Court weighed in and said, yes, Inuit are Indians under the Indian Act.  Case was the result of:  Canada sued the province of Quebec for reimbursement of Inuit relief that they began to allocate in the 1930s and that they expected provinces to repay.  Quebec said, uh no, the Inuit are a federal responsibility, like Indians, and thus they fall under YOUR jurisdiction.  Canada sued. And lost at the SC.  Canada responded poorly and did not draft a cogent Inuit policy (as recommended by the SC)  In fact, despite the SC’s ruling, Canada maintained its course and refused to legislatively equate Indian and Inuit.  The 1951 amendments to the Indian Act made their position clear when amendment stated that it “does not include any person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Eskimos.  Even TODAY the Indian Act does not acknowledge Inuit and no policy or legislation has been established to aid in their health and wellbeing. They remain in a legislative void. 1939  Fragmented. Situational. A mix of policy and legislation  Most popular: reduce the costs associated with administering policies and relief through consolidation: encourage/coerce Inuit communities to relocate into larger, more populous centers. THE APPROACH TO INUIT ADMIN  1. Ongoing, yet sporadic concern for Inuit well-being; or at least a collective apprehension that they might starve to death under Canada’s watch  2. Relocation policies: Business ventures, including the HBC’s northern operations, were threatened in regions sporting low numbers of Inuit trappers or laborers, and relocation would mitigate that issue  3. Sovereignty concerns: relocation policies: Canada’s need to situate citizens in far flung territories to demonstrate territorial occupancy; thus, territorial dominion. THREE PHILOSOPHIES DROVE THAT APPROACH  Remained a key policy for the next 35 years  During that time, implemented a handful of times, with tragic outcomes (see below), but for the most part, the North continued to be ignored in lieu of more pressing Southern concerns.  The end of WW II was a turning point, in that 1945 marks the year that the Inuit were transformed from a largely forgotten policy group to a key policy concern  Until 1953, officials would continue to encourage some Inuit to maintain traditional lifestyles.  However, irrevocable changes had taken place in some their territories and to their political economies.  What happened at the end of WW II? THE POLICY OF RELOCATION  Between 1949 and 1959, 10 key relocations were put into effect.  The Government told each of the groups that they were being moved to Eden (relatively speaking), where additionally, they could find good wage employment.  Neither thing was true.  No consideration was given to each community’s future, what Canada was trying to accomplish was a strategy related to her sovereignty in areas where it was being questioned, notably by the United States.  Some of the relocations are true horror stories and in 2010, the Canadian government issued another one of it’s apologies, after setting up a 190- million-dollar compensation fund in 1996, for uprooting families from their traditional lands and shipping them to various extremely remote northern climes. RELOCATION CONTINUED  Canada’s record vis a vis the Inuit is dismal.  In the 1950’s, in efforts to ensure they could claim some northern areas as “Canadian,” the federal government, under the “High Arctic Relocation” policy, forcibly removed entire Inuit communities from their homelands into areas north 1000s of miles away.  Canada also followed a policy of locating its military bases on Inuit land in the North, while locating them near FN land in the south.  Studies have shown the severe disruption to ecological life (particularly in northern FN lands – disrupted caribou migrations etc.) CANADA AND THE INUIT SEARCH FOR NUNAAT (HOMELAND AND THE TERM INCLUDES ICE AND WATER + LAND)  AN EXAMPLE - RELOCATION  When there were not enough people available in a Northern area, the Canadian government resorted to forced Inuit relocation.  Ex: In 1953: Inuit were relocated North into the High Arctic to establish Canadian communities. Concerned about Greenland and U.S. challenges to sovereignty; the government moved the Inukjuak (Inuk) from Port Harrison to Grise Ford and Resolute. (The Inuk would rename their island “prison island”).  Particularly harsh environment.  Canadian government viewed this largely as a human experiment to see how successful southern Inuit would be in the North.  Unbelievable change in climate, far removed from their millennia old eco-context, very difficult transition. As they had been moved about 2,000 km (1,200 mi) to a very different ecosystem, they were unfamiliar with the wildlife and had to adjust to months of 24-hour darkness during the winter, and 24-hour sunlight during the summer, something that does not occur in northern Quebec. They were told that they would be returned home after two years if they wished, but these promises were not honoured by the government  Government “chose” to withhold rifles, fishing gear and tent repairing materials to see how the Inuit would respond – this was in effect, a human laboratory.  = starvation and disease. INUK RELOCATION  Canada embraced the U.S. desire to establish the Distant Early Warning System (DEW), an anti-invasion strategy (against Russia) consisting of a string of continental defence radar installations stretching from Alaska to Greenland to detect Soviet long-range bombers.  This became a national priority. Beginning in 1954 and until 1957, it employed more than 25,000 people. Inuit were promised the work, but they made up a tiny fraction of 14,000 Canadians working on the project.  Consequences included the sedentism of Inuit in and around key projects, inability to practice their political econ within certain ranges of the sites, ongoing lack of federal transition resources for loss of land and resources, and lack of employment in those same areas. THE COLD WAR AND THE DEW LINE  The Distant Early Warning Line, also known as the DEW Line or Early Warning Line, was a system of radar stations in the far northern Arctic region of Canada, with additional stations along the North Coast and Aleutian Islands of Alaska (see Project Stretchout and Project Bluegrass), in addition to the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland. It was set up to detect incoming Soviet bombers during the Cold War and provide early warning of any sea-and-land invasion.  The DEW Line was the northernmost and most capable of three radar lines in Canada and Alaska. The first of these was the joint Canadian-US Pinetree Line, which ran from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island just north of the Canadian border, but even while it was being built there were concerns that it would not provide enough warning time to launch an effective counterattack. The Mid-Canada Line (MCL) was proposed as an inexpensive solution using a new type of radar. This provided a "trip wire" warning located roughly at the 55th parallel, giving commanders ample warning time, but little information on the targets or their exact location. The MCL proved largely useless in practice, as the radar return of flocks of birds overwhelmed signals from aircraft.  The impact of the DEW line, and the peoples removed to accommodate “top secret” facilities had a profound impact on various northern peoples. Even at the time, the line was highly contentious and seen as Canada bending to US demands. MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN THE ARCTIC EARLY WARNING LINES  In the 1990s, scandal erupted across the country when the High Arctic Relocation policy was leaked into the public domain.  The frightening death rates, the fact that the Inuit had served as laboratory rats… led to the appointment of a Commission and a thorough investigation revealing the government’s actions.  It is important to again note the following:  1. The Inuit are still not under the umbrella of the Indian Act.  Inuit were sent to residential schools and rounded up in areas for that effort under the Canadian government.  Inuit also formed a significant portion of the medical experiment population, as well as forced sterilization.  2. Until the Constitution of 1982, the Inuit were not formally recognized as one of Canada’s indigenous peoples.  3. Until it was “discovered” that the North was full of exceptionally rich resources, (mines, oil and gas, minerals) the government paid little attention to negotiating any northern treaties. 1990S CANADA SCANDAL ERUPTS  The Government of the Northwest Territories was established and Ottawa happily devolved responsibility for Inuit onto it. IN 1966  Inuit long concerned about the lack of federal interest in them  Outraged at the lack of recognition of their territorial sovereignty  Canada had asserted a unilateral claim to their homelands – not even a pretense that indigenous title existed.  With the stroke of a pen and the presence of the RCMP they were increasingly treated as strangers in their own lands, with the feds increasing blocking access to their own natural resources.  IN the mid 1960s, with the increasing presence of nonnative people encroaching from the south, and with the imposition of federal programs that included relocation, The North’s indigenous people joined together to form the Indian and Eskimo Association. (IEA)  Goal of IEA: research indigenous peoples rights and fight for territorial land claims  Goal: strengthen social, economic, and political influence  Goal: wrest decision making power away from the feds. SEEKING SELF DETERMINATION  Established 1971. Charter:  1. secure Inuit land title  2. establish resource management protocols with the feds and outside interests like corporations  3. ensure Inuit play a role in regional policy formation, program design and land and resource allocation  4. Create a separate territory: Nunavut (“Our Land”) THE INUIT TAPIRISAT CORPORATION (ITC)  Recall:  1. The SCC ruled that indigenous title existed, even those that had not been specified in the Royal Proc of 1763.  2. SC found that indigenous title arose from long term use and continuous occupancy of territory.  Inuit certainly fit both criteria and their title to their land had never been extinguished. Ottawa had a problem.  Ottawa needed to extinguish title, and in order to be well prepared, the Inuit hired a team to conduct an unprecedented land use and occupancy study in the North. The extensive research provided Inuit with the data they needed to press their claims and to propose boundaries in their territory. To negotiate with Ottawa, they set up the Northwest Territories Inuit Land Claims Commission (1977) after extensive consultation with Inuit communities.  Proposal entitled “Speaking for the First Citizens for the Canadian Arctic” was submitted to Ottawa.  Land claims component was well received, but feds rejected Inuit proposal that political development be discussed first.  Negotiations ground to a halt; ILCC was disbanded and replaced WITH The Nunavut Land Claims project. 1973 CALDER CASE IMPACTED THE NORTH TOO.  In 1979, The Commission divided the NWT, with a new eastern district (Nunatsiaq)roughly corresponding to the proposed boundaries for Nunavut.  At its 1979 meeting, the ITC drafted the “Political Development in Nunavut” doc, a proposal that incorporated the best aspects of all previous proposals. It sought four guarantees:  1. Inuit ownership over portions of land rich in non-renewable resources.  2. Inuit decision making power over the management of land and resources in the settlement area  3. Inuit financial indemnity and royalties from resources  4. a commitment from Ottawa to negotiate self-government once a land claim was finalized.  The ITC recognized that land claims resolutions must be accompanied by the NWT division to permit Nunavut creation. 1979, ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION DIVIDES THE NWT  Main goal: land claims settlement  Munro announced that he would accept the division of NWT plebiscite results and the NWT Legislative Assembly's decisions in relation to the territorial population's wishes BUT  1. preconditional on Inuit land claims being settled PRIOR to the proposed division  2. boundary drawn to create east/west divisions would have to be accepted by NWT residents and formally approved  3. an accord would have to be reached defining the general structural arrangements of the new Government of Nunavut.  Inuit benefitted from the 1982 Constitution Act here, which declared them to be indigenous peoples and affirmed that any Land Claims reached would be protected under the Act.  In April 1982, 56% of NWT residents voted in favor of the east/west division; 80% of Inuit voted in favor. OTTAWA/INDIAN AFFAIRS MINISTER JOHN MUNROE  You do not have to know all the ins and outs… but  Early successes = agreements on Inuit role in wildlife management, off shore rights and resource management.  Key: 1985 Coolican Task Force Report, federal land claims policy in North was revised to recognize Inuit decision making authority in relation to joint management boards, resource revenues, and offshore Areas.  Similarly (playing into Ottawa wishes) the Economic Union and development Prospects for Canada report suggested that a new territory in the eastern Arctic would make Canada’s North “more governable.” MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS TAKE PLACE  Under the new land claims policy, Inuit refused to even consider any federal offers that failed to propose a separate Inuit territory.  Additionally, it was discovered that the initial proposed 1979 boundary ran right through traditional lands claimed by eastern Arctic Inuit and in the west, through Sahtu Dene-Metis territory.  Negotiation broke down in 1985 when the Dene-Metis refused to ratify a tentative agreement.  Disputes were resolved and formalized in the Nunavut Political Accord and signed in 1990 by the feds, the NWT and the TFN. MOST CONTROVERSIAL: NEW BOUNDARIES  In 1976, the Inuit from Inuvialuit had broken away from the Nunavut process and negotiated their own land claims – the first to be signed in the North – the Iqaluit Agreement.  As past of that agreement, they had to be consulted as the Nunavut process moved forward.  Review: Comprehensive Land Claims BREAK AWAYS  2500 regional Inuvialuit received back 91,000 sq km of land and 45 million in compensation over 13 years.  Guaranteed hunting and trapping rights  Granted equal participation in the management of wildlife and the environment  Established a 10 million Economic Enhancement Fund  Established a 7.5 million Social Development Fund. THE INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT (1984)  In 1993, Nunavut (“our land”) was given parliamentary approval  Nunavut came into being on April 1, 1999.  The Northwest Territories was split into two; Nunavut encompasses an area larger than California and Alaska combined; NWT greatly diminished.  Half of Canada’s Inuit reside in Nunavut. With the rest living in Nunavik (northern Quebec), Nunatsiavut (costal Labrador), the NWT and the Yukon (see their agreements below for exam). INUVIALUIT EXPANDED  Gwich’in granted 24,000 sq km of land in NW Northwest territories and 1,554 sq km in the Yukon  Nontaxable payment of 75 million over 15 years  Share of subsurface rights, resource royalties from Mackenzie Valley, hunting rights, managerial role in wildlife management of wildlife and the environment. THE GWICH’IN AGREEMENT (1992)  Largest and most comprehensive claim in Canada  In 1999, this agreement facilitated the division of the NWT into two and created the sovereign territory of Nunavut. NUNAVUT LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT (1993)  15 Yukon First Nations signed an Umbrella final agreement with the Feds and the Yukon Territorial Government.  Set out the general terms for the final land-claim settlements in the territory.  At same time: Four First Nations reached their final agreements re their land claims:  Vuntut Gwitchen First Nation; Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, Teslin Tlingit Council, and the First Nation of Na-cho Ny’a’k Dun.  All of the above negotiated self government agreements giving them control over land use on settlement lands and majority authority in languages, health care, social services and education. THE COUNCIL OF YUKON INDIANS (1993)  Provided both groups with: ◦ 41,537 sq km of land, ◦ a share of resource royalties from the Mackenzie valley, ◦ guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights. ◦ Ensured participation in decision making bodies that deal with:  Renewable resources  Land-use planning  Environmental impact assessments and reviews  Land and water use regulations ◦ $75 million over 15 years. THE SAHTU DENE AND MÉTIS AGREEMENT (1994)  Governance of the territory had to be moved from Yellowknife (NWT). A decentralized approach had been agreed to that would spread government functions across communities to enhance those communities, but also, given the distances, was a practical approach.  Distributed across 10 communities outside Iqaluit after 1999 to:  1. geographically spread the benefits of government employment (need for jobs)  2. helped surmount issues of recruitment and retention  3. breaking Iqualuit’s concentration of political and bureaucratic power. SOME COMMENTS ON NUNAVUT WHERE IS IQALUIT?  Nunavut faced/faces many challenges: Appalling housing conditions in communities Housing costs three times higher than in Ottawa 14,000 Inuit live in public housing, 53 percent in overcrowded housing, 15% are on waiting lists for housing (3300 houses needed at minimum to address the current housing shortage) Average income far below (1) mainstream Canada, (2) FN and M incomes. Average Inuit lives on less than 20,000 a year, non indigenous peoples in Inuit earn an average of $86,000 per year. Cost of groceries extraordinarily prohibitive: #13 for a cauliflower; $28 for small bag of grapes; $10 for a head of lettuce; $12 for a liter of Tropicana – this while an Inuit family of 4 lives, on average, on $19760 a year. Cost of “new style” hunting and trapping (snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition, and gear) equally prohibitive. Current move to return to Inuit strategies. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE NUNAVUT CONTINUED  The southern green movements and northern concerns for environment often diverge.  Southern models are built on the “northern wilderness” paradigm – arctic ecosystems must be protected for the purpose of nature conservation, or for the nation’s treasure, or for ‘future generations.’  Hence laws have been passed that are enforced by various bodies across Alaska and Canada that focus on ensuring that hunting and fishing falls within certain set limits, that they do not occur out of season, and/or banning the export or imports of certain meats, skins and trophies that are deemed “protection worthy” under western law. (in this regard see the 1960s seal protests or the anti-fur wearing’ protests that heavily impacted the passing of those laws). SLIDES FOR EXAM ON ENVIRONMENT  The heavy emphasis on “safe-guarding” animals rights and certain lands is privileged over the humans that live there.  An Inuit elder asked: How can they love a seal more than a human being..? when his Nation was told that from that point forward they could not hunt seals – a mainstay of Inuit subsistence as you know. This policy impacted their ability to produce (1) clothing, (2) food, (3) boats/kayaks, (4) tools.  Thus while “Saving” the seals, we forced, by law, the Inuit to give up/limit subsistence strategies that have served them for millennia and made them DEPENDENT ON WESTERN ALTERNATIVES.  (here) While this is one example, there are multiple like scenarios. The hypocrisy we engage in is not lost on the Inuit who note that when mines are put in place for example, suddenly the impact on their environment is moot.  These laws rankle wherever they are found in the North, and they are ignored if possible.  Note that the banning of seal and whale hunting for example, irrespective of the fact they are not endangered (Greenpeace to the contrary) is an especially sore point. THE NORTHERN WILDERNESS PARADIGM FROM AN INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVE - EXAM  Animal rights versus indigenous subsistence rights  Why does indigenous consultation on the outlawing of hunting certain animals not occur when those laws limit or exclude their ability to maintain their livelihoods?  Why do the sensibilities of outsiders trump indigenous needs and choices? This has been called neo-colonial paternalism. QUESTIONS TO PONDER…  Through the way in which we use our resources (oil and gas, coal etc.) and the way we in the South have exploited/killed our environments, we are strangling/killing the North.  All our weather patterns in the Northern hemisphere emanate from the North Pole.  Climate change has heavily impacted the North, but it isn't northern peoples who altered the climate.  One example: Caribou, according to the Inuit, migrate 6 weeks later than they did 30 years ago. This fact radically changes how the caribou people themselves live (changing patterns with reindeer in Russia and Scandinavia correspond).  The Northwest Passage has been ice-free throughout the WINTER these past years. (Former Secretary of State Pompeo (under Trump) in U.S. responded with glee to this fact, delighted that they could now move oil and gas year round and get at oil and gas fields hitherto inaccessible).  I deeply regret that we were unable to delve into these facts in this class…. I hope that you will take the time to perhaps google what else is happening in the north. FINALLY…