Analyze

Since 1972, Eeyou Itschee, a territory east of James Bay, has been terraformed by the largest hydro-generation system on the planet, led by HydroQuébec and the Government of Québec. A territory 2/3rds the size of France has been diked, dammed, its rivers redirected, and criss-crossed by electrical transmission lines to the South and to the US. Due to the high levels of mercury released by the forests flooded for reservoirs the size of Belgium, health authorities recommend eating no more than two fish from the rivers each month. Fluctuating spring river levels led to the drowning of tens of thousands of Caribou. Learning only from newspapers, the resident Eenouch came together and negotiated the first land claims agreement in Canada, surrendering about 99% of their territory for promises of economic development. 50 years on, a settler-colonial geography, reinforced by a complex sociolegal framework, contain and constrain spatial relations in and of Eeyou Itschee through constant processes of renegotiation and reparation for land with money. Our research focused on a survey of the ways the science literature represents the region and its features. Our research ties with this territory are strongly linked to Nemaska, an Eenouch hamlet 2 days drive north of Montreal that was expropriated but managed to relocate and rebuild their community. Today, a lithium (spodumene) mine is being developed nearby. The community fears the impacts. However, the Nemaska band council approved the project due to the economic benefits it might bring. For more information: https://www.spaceandculture.com/2023/10/31/eeyou-istchee-old-nemaska/ 

Source

Shields, Rob, Cheryl Arnston, Nicholas Hardy and Juan David Guevara-Salamanca. 2023. "Eeyou Itschee and settler colonial terraforming." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

Since 1972, Eeyou Itschee, a territory east of James Bay, has been terraformed by the largest hydro-generation system on the planet, led by HydroQuébec and the Government of Québec. A territory 2/3rds the size of France has been diked, dammed, its rivers redirected, and criss-crossed by electrical transmission lines to the South and to the US. Due to the high levels of mercury released by the forests flooded for reservoirs the size of Belgium, health authorities recommend eating no more than two fish from the rivers each month. Fluctuating spring river levels led to the drowning of tens of thousands of Caribou. Learning only from newspapers, the resident Eenouch came together and negotiated the first land claims agreement in Canada, surrendering about 99% of their territory for promises of economic development. 50 years on, a settler-colonial geography, reinforced by a complex sociolegal framework, contain and constrain spatial relations in and of Eeyou Itschee through constant processes of renegotiation and reparation for land with money. Our research focused on a survey of the ways the science literature represents the region and its features. Our research ties with this territory are strongly linked to Nemaska, an Eenouch hamlet 2 days drive north of Montreal that was expropriated but managed to relocate and rebuild their community. Today, a lithium (spodumene) mine is being developed nearby. The community fears the impacts. However, the Nemaska band council approved the project due to the economic benefits it might bring. For more information: https://www.spaceandculture.com/2023/10/31/eeyou-istchee-old-nemaska/ 

Shields, Rob, Cheryl Arnston, Nicholas Hardy and Juan David Guevara-Salamanca. 2023. "Eeyou Itschee and settler colonial terraforming." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

In the article, the authors used data from the 2011-2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census, 2010 U.S Census, and George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.”. They looked at data follwing children under 18,  and followed poverty trends such as census tracts for concentrated areas of high poverty. They used the number of children in Essex County Cities and compared it to the the amount of children in poverty in those cities, for the years of 2000 and 2015. Henceforth, they created an arguement stating that Child Poverty rates have risen within those 15 years, and even by 50% in some areas. The only issue I have with some of this data is that in some cities, we see a decrease in child population - and while there is an increase in child poverty in those areas, I feel like the reduced number of children in that area plays a big part in the so called "Increased Child Poverty Rates".

The main argument in this artical is children poverty in newark has  increased by 19 percent  in the last 15 years. In newark over 40% of chlidren live in poverty. 

Vulnerability and resilience in this artifact are defined by the high concentration of child poverty in Essex County. They are measured using the Census from 2000 and 2015 which show how there is a trend in the percentage of children who expereince poverty within the county. Majority of the children living in poverty are currently living in heavilyu concentrated poverty neighborhoods like Newark, Irvington, and the Oranges. Although the affluent town of Milburn is nearby, it is unclear how these children continue to live below the poverty line in Newark even though the towns are only 6 miles apart. 

As a sesearch from the Rotgers University, the students or researchers support:

- The child poverty in becoming more concentrated. With the numbers next to us, we can say that a 52.5% of the poorest childs live in census were the concentration is above a 40%

- Inner-ring suburbs of Orange, East Orange, and Irvington have seen the largest increases in child poverty.

- Essex County’s smallest municipalities have very low child poverty, although many have seen their child poverty rates increase by more than 50 percent since 2000