Category: Academic Analysis

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Evelyn Namakula Mayanja, Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University

In March 2025, President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) offered the country’s critical mineral reserves to the United States and Europe in exchange for security and stability.

At the time, the March 23 (M23) militia insurgency was unleashing violence: killing civilians, committing sexual violence, displacing communities and looting mineral resources. Since 1996, eastern Congo has been engulfed in wars and armed conflicts driven by regional powers and more than 120 armed groups.

The U.S.-brokered peace agreement between Rwanda and the DRC raises critical questions: Is this a genuine path to sustainable peace, or a continuation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategy to secure access to critical minerals through coercive diplomacy?

Read more:
4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up

Global arms race for critical minerals

The global shift toward renewable energy, digital infrastructure and military modernization has sparked a geopolitical scramble for critical and rare earth minerals.

In early 2025, Trump signed a series of executive orders that introduced aggressive and imperial-style tactics to secure access to mineral wealth. He threatened Canada with annexation and tariffs, demanded access to Greenland’s resources and linked U.S. support for Ukraine to access to its mineral reserves.

The DRC’s offer must be viewed through this lens of global resource competition.

Congo’s critical mineral wealth

The DRC holds some of the world’s richest deposits of critical minerals and metals. A 2012 article estimated the value of Congo’s untapped mineral wealth at US$24 trillion, a figure nearing the U.S. first-quarter 2025 GDP of $29.962 trillion.

The DRC produces 70 per cent of the world’s cobalt, ranks fourth in copper, sixth in industrial diamonds and also possesses vast reserves of nickel and lithium, including the Manono deposit expected to yield 95,170 tonnes of crude lithium.

But the struggle to control these resources has fuelled a cycle of armed violence, displacement and exploitation. Despite several peace agreements, peace and stability remain elusive.

America’s interests in Congo

U.S. involvement in Congo stretches back to the Cold War, when it played a role in the 1961 assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first elected prime minister who sought economic sovereignty.

In 1996, the U.S. was accused of backing Rwanda and Uganda in the initial invasion of eastern Congo. A U.S. diplomat, “Mr. Hankins,” was quoted in Goma saying: “I am here …to represent American interests.”

In 2024, President Joe Biden met Tshisekedi to advance the Lobito Corridor, a strategic trade route to counter China’s dominance in the region. Chinese companies currently control around 80 per cent of Congo’s copper market.

When Trump signed the 2025 peace agreement, he openly stated the U.S. would gain “a lot of mineral rights … foreign trade and investment from the regional critical mineral supply chains.”

U.S.-brokered peace deal

The deal, however, prioritizes America’s access to minerals over the well-being of Congolese citizens. Historically, Congo’s mineral wealth has enriched elites and foreign powers while leaving its people impoverished and vulnerable. The new agreement could entrench existing inequalities and inflame tensions further.

The U.S. has also cut off aid for war survivors, including emergency medical kits and antiretrovirals for rape victims, undermining humanitarian efforts.

Crucially, the agreement overlooks:

• The root causes and drivers of conflict at national, regional and international levels.

• The role of Rwanda and Uganda, whose militaries and intelligence services have long been implicated in supporting groups like M23. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, son of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, has referred to M23 as “our brothers” and threatened military action in Congo.

• The voices of Congolese civil society, war survivors and the public, who were excluded from the negotiation process.

• State fragility and institutional collapse — major enablers of protracted violence.

• The grievances of Hutu and Tutsi communities in the DRC, deeply rooted in colonial and regional politics.

• The presence of more than 120 armed groups, many of them proxies for foreign powers engaging in what some scholars call “geocriminality.”

Between January and February 2025 alone, more than 7,000 people were killed in the DRC. The United Nations and several human rights organizations have documented mass atrocities, including crimes of genocidal magnitude.

A path toward real peace

The peace agreement fails to demand justice for crimes committed against the Congolese people. Nobel Peace laureate Denis Mukwege condemned the deal for “rewarding aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congo’s natural resources, and sacrificing justice for a fragile peace.”

It also ignores the roles of international mining corporations and external entities that have long profited from Congo’s instability.

True and lasting peace in the DRC cannot be imposed from the outside. U.S.-led mineral extraction without justice risks deepening the crisis. Since 1999, UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the Congo , yet violence continues.

Sustainable peace will require:

• An end to impunity;

• Thorough investigations into war crimes;

• Regional truth-telling processes;

• Justice and reparations for victims;

• And most importantly, inclusion of Congolese voices in shaping their future.

Without these commitments, the U.S. risks replicating a long history of exploitation, trading in minerals while ignoring the human cost.

Evelyn Namakula Mayanja receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and from Carleton University

– ref. Congo and critical minerals: What are the costs of America’s peace? – https://theconversation.com/congo-and-critical-minerals-what-are-the-costs-of-americas-peace-260567

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anna Erickson, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

What happens when a country seeks to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program? Every peaceful program starts with a promise not to build a nuclear weapon. Then, the global community verifies that stated intent via the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Once a country signs the treaty, the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, provides continuous and technical proof that the country’s nuclear program is peaceful.

The IAEA ensures that countries operate their programs within the limits of nonproliferation agreements: low enrichment and no reactor misuse. Part of the agreement allows the IAEA to inspect nuclear-related sites, including unannounced surprise visits.

These are not just log reviews. Inspectors know what should and should not be there. When the IAEA is not on site, cameras, tamper-revealing seals on equipment and real-time radiation monitors are working full-time to gather or verify inside information about the program’s activities.

Safeguards toolkit

The IAEA safeguards toolkit is designed to detect proliferation activities early. Much of the work is fairly technical. The safeguards toolkit combines physical surveillance, material tracking, data analytics and scientific sampling. Inspectors are chemists, physicists and nuclear engineers. They count spent fuel rods in a cooling pond. They check tamper seals on centrifuges. Often, the inspectors walk miles through hallways and corridors carrying heavy equipment.

That’s how the world learned in April 2021 about Iran pushing uranium enrichment from reactor-fuel-grade to near-weapons-grade levels. IAEA inspectors were able to verify that Iran was feeding uranium into a series of centrifuges designed to enrich the uranium from 5%, used for energy programs, to 60%, which is a step toward the 90% level used in nuclear weapons.

Around the facilities, whether for uranium enrichment or plutonium processing, closed-circuit surveillance cameras monitor for undeclared materials or post-work activities. Seals around the facilities provide evidence that uranium gas cylinders have not been tampered with or that centrifuges operate at the declared levels. Beyond seals, online enrichment monitors allow inspectors to look inside of centrifuges for any changes in the declared enrichment process.

When the inspectors are on-site, they collect environmental swipes: samples of nuclear materials on surfaces, in dust or in the air. These can reveal if uranium has been enriched to levels beyond those allowed by the agreement. Or if plutonium, which is not used in nuclear power plants, is being produced in a reactor. Swipes are precise. They can identify enrichment levels from a particle smaller than a speck of dust. But they take time, days or weeks. Inspectors analyze the samples at the IAEA’s laboratories using sophisticated equipment called mass spectrometers.

In addition to physical samples, IAEA inspectors look at the logs of material inventories. They look for diversion of uranium or plutonium from normal process lines, just like accountants trace the flow of finances, except that their verification is supported by the ever-watching online monitors and radiation sensors. They also count items of interest and weigh them for additional verification of the logs.

Beyond accounting for materials, IAEA inspectors verify that the facility matches the declared design. For example, if a country is expanding centrifuge halls to increase its enrichment capabilities, that’s a red flag. Changes to the layout of material processing laboratories near nuclear reactors could be a sign that the program is preparing to produce unauthorized plutonium.

Losing access

Iran announced on June 28, 2025, that it has ended its cooperation with the IAEA. It removed the monitoring devices, including surveillance cameras, from centrifuge halls. This move followed the news by the IAEA that Iran’s enrichment activities are well outside of allowed levels. Iran now operates sophisticated uranium centrifuges, like models IR-6 and IR-9.

Removing IAEA access means that the international community loses insight into how quickly Iran’s program can accumulate weapon-grade uranium, or how much it has produced. Also lost is information about whether the facility is undergoing changes for proliferation purposes. These processes are difficult to detect with external surveillance, like satellites, alone.

An alternative to the uranium enrichment path for producing nuclear weapons material is plutonium. Plutonium can’t be mined, it has to be produced in a nuclear reactor. Iran built a reactor capable of producing plutonium, the IR-40 Heavy Water Research Reactor at the Arak Nuclear Complex.

Iran modified the Arak reactor under the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to make plutonium production less likely. During the June 2025 missile attacks, Israel targeted Arak’s facilities with the aim of eliminating the possibility of plutonium production.

With IAEA access suspended, it won’t be possible to see what happens inside the facility. Can the reactor be used for plutonium production? Although a lengthier process than the uranium enrichment path, plutonium provides a parallel path to uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons.

Continuity of knowledge

North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors in 2009. Within a few years, they restarted activities related to uranium enrichment and plutonium production in the Yongbyon reactor. The international community’s information about North Korea’s weapons program now relies solely on external methods: satellite images, radioactive particles like xenon – airborne fingerprints of nuclear activities – and seismic data.

What is lost is the continuity of the knowledge, a chain of verification over time. Once the seals are broken or cameras are removed, that chain is lost, and so is confidence about what is happening at the facilities.

When it comes to IAEA inspections, there is no single tool that paints the whole picture. Surveillance plus sampling plus accounting provide validation and confidence. Losing even one weakens the system in the long term.

The existing safeguards regime is meant to detect violations. The countries that sign the nonproliferation treaty know that they are always watched, and that plays a deterrence role. The inspectors can’t just resume the verification activities after some time if access is lost. Future access won’t necessarily enable inspectors to clarify what happened during the gap.

Anna Erickson receives funding from DOE National Nuclear Security Administration.

– ref. How the world’s nuclear watchdog monitors facilities around the world – and what it means that Iran kicked it out – https://theconversation.com/how-the-worlds-nuclear-watchdog-monitors-facilities-around-the-world-and-what-it-means-that-iran-kicked-it-out-260689

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Neil McArthur, Director, Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of Manitoba

People are falling in love with their chatbots. There are now dozens of apps that offer intimate companionship with an AI-powered bot, and they have millions of users. A recent survey of users found that 19 per cent of Americans have interacted with an AI meant to simulate a romantic partner.

The response has been polarizing. In a New Yorker article titled “Your A.I. Lover Will Change You,” futurist Jaron Lanier argued that “when it comes to what will happen when people routinely fall in love with an A.I., I suggest we adopt a pessimistic estimate about the likelihood of human degradation.”

Podcaster Joe Rogan put it more succinctly — in a recent interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the two discussed the “dystopian” prospect of people marrying their AIs. Noting a case where this has already happened, Rogan said: “I’m like, oh, we’re done. We’re cooked.”

We’re probably not cooked. Rather, we should consider accepting human-AI relationships as beneficial and healthy. More and more people are going to form such relationships in the coming years, and my research in sexuality and technology indicates it is mostly going to be fine.

Ruining human connection

When surveying the breathless media coverage, the main concern raised is that chatbots will spoil us for human connection. How could we not prefer their cheerful personalities, their uncomplicated affection and their willingness to affirm everything we say?

The fear is that, seduced by such easy companionship, many people will surely give up their desire to find human partners, while others will lose their ability to form satisfying human relationships even if they want to.

It has been less than three years since the launch of ChatGPT and other chatbots based on large language models. That means we can only speculate about the long-term effects of AI-human relationships on our capacity for intimacy. There is little data to support either side of the debate, though we can do our best to make sense of more short-term studies and other pieces of available evidence.

There are certain risks that we do know about already, and we should take them seriously. For instance, we know that AI companion apps have terrible privacy policies. Chatbots can encourage destructive behaviours. Tragically, one may have played a role in a teenager’s suicide.

The companies that provide these apps can go out of business, or they can change their terms of service without warning. This can suddenly deprive users of access to technology that they’ve become emotionally attached, with no recourse or support.

Complex relationships

In assessing the dangers of relationships with AI, however, we should remember that human relationships are not exactly risk-free. One recent paper concluded that “the association between relationship distress and various forms of psychopathology is as strong as many other well-known predictors of mental illness.”

This is not to say we should swap human companions for AI ones. We just need to keep in mind that relationships can be messy, and we are always trying to balance the various challenges that come with them. AI relationships are no different.

We should also remember that just because someone forms an intimate bond with a chatbot, that doesn’t mean it will be their only close relationship. Most people have lots of different people in their lives, who play a variety of different roles. Chatbot users may depend on their AI companions for support and affirmation, while still having relationships with humans that provide different kinds of challenges and rewards.

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg has suggested that AI companions may help solve the problem of loneliness. However, there is some (admittedly very preliminary data) to suggest that many of the people who form connections with chatbots are not just trying to escape loneliness.

In a recent study (which has not yet been peer reviewed), researchers found that feelings of loneliness did not play a measurable role in someone’s desire to form a relationship with an AI. Instead, the key predictor seemed to be a desire to explore romantic fantasies in a safe environment.

Support and safety

We should be willing to accept AI-human relationships without judging the people who form them. This follows a general moral principle that most of us already accept: we should respect the choices people make about their intimate lives when those choices don’t harm anyone else. However, we can also take steps to ensure that these relationships are as safe and satisfying as possible.

First of all, governments should implement regulations to address the risks we know about already. They should, for instance, hold companies accountable when their chatbots suggest or encourage harmful behaviour.

Governments should also consider safeguards to restrict access by younger users, or at least to control the behaviour of chatbots who are interacting with young people. And they should mandate better privacy protections — though this is a problem that spans the entire tech industry.

Read more:
Teenagers turning to AI companions are redefining love as easy, unconditional and always there

Second, we need public education so people understand exactly what these chatbots are and the issues that can arise with their use. Everyone would benefit from full information about the nature of AI companions but, in particular, we should develop curricula for schools as soon as possible.

While governments may need to consider some form of age restriction, the reality is that large numbers of young people are already using this technology, and will continue to do so. We should offer them non-judgmental resources to help them navigate their use in a manner that supports their well-being, rather than stigmatizes their choices.

AI lovers aren’t going to replace human ones. For all the messiness and agony of human relationships, we still (for some reason) pursue other people. But people will also keep experimenting with chatbot romances, if for no other reason than they can be a lot of fun.

Neil McArthur does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. More people are considering AI lovers, and we shouldn’t judge – https://theconversation.com/more-people-are-considering-ai-lovers-and-we-shouldnt-judge-260631

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Treena Orchard, Associate Professor, School of Health Studies, Western University

With plummeting subscriber numbers, rising costs and users who are sick of endless swiping, the dating app industry is in crisis. Recent layoffs at Bumble are raising questions about the future of dating apps and alternatives for people who want to find romance and connection offline instead.

One of the most popular alternatives is a return to in-person dating activities like speed dating, running clubs and daytime raves.

For millennials and older generations, in-person dating is familiar territory, but if you’re part of Gen Z — often described as the “digital generation” — that isn’t necessarily the case.

This inter-generational divide was on display recently at Canada’s first sex tech conference, where I made a presentation on masculinity, dating apps and in-person alternatives to swiping. During the Q&A, a young woman chimed in with a comment that stopped me in my tracks: “Check your extrovert privilege,” she said.

After a few moments of awkward silence, the discussion resumed with a new focus on how difficult it is for younger folks to date in-person. Many of you are disillusioned with dating apps and lack the interpersonal experience some of us older generations take for granted.

So where does that leave you? Telling Gen Z to just “get out there” is not only culturally tone-deaf, but it could also contribute to rising levels of loneliness and feelings of not mattering that already affect many young people today.

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

In-person dating is trending

If dating apps are starting to feel more like a chore than a chance at connection, you’re not alone. A New York Times article by reporter Catherine Pearson encourages Gen Z to create meaningful communities and be open to different kinds of relationships versus the pressure-laden focus to find “the one.”

Some dating apps have joined the movement to support in-person dating. For example, Hinge hosts One More Hour, a social impact initiative to help people make in-person connections. It’s aimed at Gen Z, many of whom report anxiety around face-to-face interactions.

The hyper-digitized environment many Gen Z are a part of can feel pretty disingenuous over time, which makes connecting with someone at a park, bar or library refreshing and novel.

Meet-cutes in physical places can also take frustrating app-based practices like catfishing out of the equation. Interestingly, 38 per cent of Gen Z polled in a recent survey expressed a desire to have designated spaces for hookups and self-love at work.

How one organization is re-thinking dating

Although not specifically for Gen Z, another noteworthy force in the in-person dating landscape is the relationship-building organization called We Met IRL, founded in 2022 by entrepreneur Maxine Simone Williams.

Born out of frustration with dating apps and the lack of diversity in traditional dating spaces, We Met IRL hosts speed dating events, mixers and social gatherings that encourage romantic or platonic connections offline.

The desire for in-person romance among Gen Z is beginning to shift the cultural needle, at least in the United States where a recent survey indicates that only 23 per cent of Gen Z adults met their partner through a dating app, social media or online community.

So, if a lot of these young people are already dating in-person, why is it often spoken about as being hard or stressful?

In-person dating is hard

Dating in-person can be challenging for a number of reasons. Key culprits include the fact that dating apps focus on performative and inauthentic forms of communication, the challenges of coming-of-age during the pandemic and the cultural shift away from relationships all together.

A study I conducted with Gen Z students also highlighted the reasons behind the decline of relationships. Gen Z want meaningful partnerships, but fear getting cheated on, ghosted or emotionally hurt.

Socio-cultural factors like the retreat of men from intimacy and vulnerability also feed into the dismantling of traditional relationship structures and gender relations more broadly. These shifts have a cascading effect on younger generations and boys, in particular, are described as being “lost” and less emotionally resilient.

The rise of misogynistic influencers and politicians openly denigrating women as part of their radicalization of boys and young men is only making things worse.

And yes, some of the awkwardness around in-person dating might come down to what that young woman called “extrovert privilege.” A recent study found that Gen Z are more shy than other generations but not for no reason. Growing up immersed in smartphone technology and social media means Gen Z have had fewer opportunities to develop interpersonal skills.

In-person dating can be hard, but not because there’s something wrong with you or because there are fewer good catches out there. It’s hard because connection, trust and vulnerability are difficult in a complex world that doesn’t always create the space you need to learn about relationships and interpersonal communication.

How to build confidence with in-person dating

As a formerly painfully shy young person, I can say with confidence that the categories of introvert and extrovert are not written in stone. There is ample evidence to show that Gen Zers who are less confident in the realm of romance can learn to enhance their in-person skills and reduce anxiety around social events.

Here are seven tips from licensed counsellors for ways to build your in-person skills:

1. Prepare for the event ahead of time when possible.

2. Reframe how you view and feel about uncertainty — not as a threat, but as an opportunity for growth.

3. Stay grounded in who you are.

4. Practise social skills to gain confidence.

5. Pay attention to your body language — to make sure you appear open and welcoming.

6. Remind yourself you’re not the only one struggling with feeling confident.

7. Consider seeking the help of a therapist if fear or anxiety is overwhelming.

Reframing your vulnerability as being less about your ingrained tendencies and more an opportunity for you to reflect on who you area as a social being is one of the most powerful things you can do.

Tools like reflexive vision boards or self-reflection exercises can help you explore your values, goals and identity in meaningful ways. These reflective practices are even more effective when supported by schools, communities or organizations that can help young people turn moments of risk or fear into opportunities for personal exploration.

Building resilience is like building muscle: it needs to be exercised and challenged to grow into the resource we need it to be. With the right support and space to practice, you can build the kind of confidence and self-awareness that carries into every part of your life, not just dating.

Treena Orchard has received funding from SSHRC, CIHR, and Western University, however, no research funding was awarded or used in the creation of this article.

– ref. Why in-person dating is making a comeback — and why Gen Z is struggling with it – https://theconversation.com/why-in-person-dating-is-making-a-comeback-and-why-gen-z-is-struggling-with-it-257210

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Louis Busch, Psychotherapist, Doctoral Candidate (UofT OISE), Bear Clan Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation., University of Toronto

For nearly two decades, I worked as a therapist in a large psychiatric hospital in Toronto, supporting people living with severe mental health challenges. Many of those I encountered were navigating complex intersections of psychiatric diagnoses, chronic physical illness, poverty, and the breakdown of family and social support. Stories of fear, isolation, abuse and abandonment were pervasive.

Occasionally, I witnessed transformative outcomes; patients reconnecting with loved ones, reclaiming aspects of their identity and building meaningful lives beyond their diagnoses. Unfortunately, such outcomes were typically the exception. More commonly, individuals cycled through repeated hospitalizations, and were placed in institutional or custodial settings. Some lost their lives before they got any better.

While our mental health system certainly fails people of all backgrounds, I observed a unique disservice done to the Black, brown and Indigenous patients I encountered.

Read more:
Racism impacts your health

The system seems designed to fail them not only in its methodology, but also in the basic values it is built upon.

Within my own journey of mental health recovery, I found healing alongside helpers across Turtle Island, rather than within the confines of a mental health institution or pages of a manualized treatment protocol.

It’s common for First Nations Peoples to refer to “helpers” or “helping work” when describing individuals who provide relationally-based support to others. As a community psychotherapist and later PhD student, I became increasingly interested in these helpers as unsung heroes of community wellness. They didn’t necessarily have a graduate degree in a mental health field, and they were rarely recognized or compensated for their efforts, yet they made great personal sacrifices to support the healing journeys of those around them.

Who are Indigenous helpers?

My doctoral research investigates who these Indigenous helpers are, the nature of their helping work and the role of language and dialogue in the relationships they form with those they help.

Here is what I’ve learned so far:

1. Knowledge is defined by lived experience
Indigenous helpers are individuals who emerge naturally from within their families and communities rather than being self-appointed professionals or receiving accreditation from a college or certification board. Their knowledge and skill is defined by their lived experiences, their kinship obligations and the trust placed in them by their community. They seamlessly blend practical support such as caregiving and crisis intervention with relational and spiritual guidance rooted in ancestral values and traditions.

2. Helping work is holistic and relational
Helping work is a holistic, relational practice rooted in cultural values and kinship responsibility. It involves a continuous, reciprocal process of healing, where the act of helping heals the helper, their relative and the collective. Helping work is guided by an ethic of relational accountability and powered time spent together and deep, action-based dialogue. It integrates physical, emotional, cognitive and spiritual dimensions through storytelling, presence and joint engagement in work, rest, play and ceremony. It is a long-term process that is highly contextual and nonlinear.

3. Language is medicine
Indigenous languages hold the blueprint for helping and healing work. Embedded within Indigenous languages are complex relational networks that shape how people understand themselves, their families, their worlds, and their roles within the broader community. While English is an analytic, noun-based language, Nêhîyawêwin (the Cree language) and many other Indigenous languages are polysynthetic, verb-based and highly contextual. This linguistic structure encodes kinship ties, responsibility and ways of being in relation to others (human and non-human).

Cree protectors and caretakers

One powerful example of the complexity of Indigenous languages comes from the words used to describe “Elders,” which is often a point of contention, as the English word doesn’t capture what people are trying to say when referring to the helper-leaders in our communities.

The Nêhîyawêwin (Plains Cree) word for an Elder is kisêyiniw. This is often translated simply as “old man,” but in reality carries a much deeper meaning.

The root kisê- comes from the Cree word ê-kisêt, which describes an animal feigning injury to protect its young. The second root -niw- means “a person,” making kisêyiniw not just an old man, but a protector and a caretaker who sacrifices for future generations.

Kisêyiniw describes those who embody relational responsibility: protecting, guiding and enduring suffering for the well-being of others. So rather than just being an aged person, or even an aged person who has wisdom or leadership qualities, the word kisêyiniw describes those who embody relational responsibility — protecting, guiding and enduring suffering for the well-being of others.

This contrasting of meaning reveals how the Cree language structures identity, healing and responsibility in ways that the English translation fails to capture.

A child forced to cease speaking their native language, and speak only English, would lose all of the values and meaning that exist within the relational networks that comprise the word and its concepts, and be left with a simple arbitrary label. I believe this to be at the core of much of the intergenerational suffering found in the wake of the Indian Residential School system.

Culturally specific mental health care

This is one of the reasons Indigenous-led approaches must reclaim language as central to healing, recognizing that Indigenous languages hold entire systems of wellness, governance, relationship and emotional regulation.

Truly culturally responsive care must prioritize language revitalization, ceremony and kinship-based care as core practices.

Funders, policymakers, researchers and clinicians must recognize, fund and integrate Indigenous helpers — Elders, ceremonial leaders, traditional knowledge keepers and natural helpers identified by their communities — as core mental health providers, not cultural add-ons.

Governments, universities and regulatory bodies must remove barriers preventing Indigenous helpers from full participation in mental health professions. Efforts to include Indigenous helpers should avoid forcing Indigenous helping practices into western psychotherapy models with strict, compartmentalized boundaries.

Instead, we must restore intergenerational, kinship-based healing through relationships, ceremony, land-based practices and daily caregiving.

Genuinely culturally responsive and anti-colonial mental health care requires shifting resources and power back to Indigenous helpers, languages and communities.

Louis Busch receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), including a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and a SSHRC Impact Award.

– ref. ‘Indigenous helpers’ are essential to culturally responsive mental health care – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-helpers-are-essential-to-culturally-responsive-mental-health-care-249128

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andy Curtis, Distinguished Guest Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, City University of Macau

Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered is the title of the highly influential 1973 book written by the German-born British economist E.F. Schumacher.

The book marked its 50th anniversary in 2023, but a couple of years later, we find ourselves in a time where “big is best,” at least according to the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump, and his administration.

The most recent example of their the-bigger-the-better mentality is the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill that recently became law.

Understandably, the focus in the extensive news coverage of the nearly 900-page document has been on the contents of the bill, especially the economic implications for American citizens, institutions and organizations.

But very little attention has been paid to the actual language of the bill, not least because, well, who has the time to pore over 900 pages of language?

Linguistic analysis

This is where a new kind of political language analysis can help.

In my 2022 book, I deconstructed and analyzed the speeches of past American presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In my subsequent 2024 book, I subjected five of Trump’s major campaign speeches to an in-depth level of linguistic analysis that had not been applied before.

One of the findings of my 10 years of analyzing Trump speeches since 2015, when he famously announced his plans to run for the presidency while riding on a golden escalator, is how effective the advice was of his former adviser, Steve Bannon. He reportedly told Trump in 2018 “to flood the zone with shit.”

In other words, Bannon was advising Trump to ensure there was so much information, disinformation and misinformation coming from the Trump campaign that neither the political opposition nor the media could keep up with it.

And even if they tried, distinguishing fact from fiction and disentangling exaggeration and bombastic hyperbole from carefully calculated lies became an insurmountable task even for the most dedicated of investigative journalists, including Canadian-born Daniel Dale.

Why another four years?

Applying Schumacher’s idea that “small is beautiful” to language analysis is one way of countering the kind of deliberate language overload employed by the Trump administration.

Taking small but complete slices of language and subjecting them to a new kind of forensic, linguistic analysis can help us understand, in this case, why more than 77 million American voters decided that what their country and the world needed was another Trump presidency. What role did Trump’s language play in that outcome?

An example of a small but complete piece of language is the official announcement of the One Big Beautiful Bill on the White House website on July 7.

The announcement was entitled: “President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill: A Win for Workers, Farmers, and America’s Future.”

The first thing to notice is what this is not. It is not presented as a bill passed by the U.S. government or even the Republican Party. It is Trump’s bill, which may be a small but clear, concise example of the ways in which a nation’s government can be reduced to a single person, like autocratic dictatorships and absolutemonarchies.

Then there is the title of the legislation, which has been described as “absurd” and therefore easy to dismiss. But the three-B alliteration is nonetheless catchy, which makes it memorable and all the more irresistible to the world’s mainstream media.

The title also identifies three supposedly big winners in the bill: American workers, American farmers and America the Beautiful.

Stoking fears

“Winner takes all” appears to be the mantra of the second Trump administration, but it’s important to notice the exclusions of large groups, including those who live in the U.S. but aren’t working — like children, retirees and the unemployed, which is the majority of citizens — and those who aren’t farmers, which is more than 99 per cent of all Americans.

It’s also critical to be aware of the aggrandizing and misleading language of the bill. The introductory paragraph on the page announcing the bill describes it as a “sweeping legislative triumph” — despite the fact that the legislation passed by a single vote — while referring to “the largest tax cuts in history” and “historic funding for national security.”

The recurring references to American history are at odds with the fact that Trump lacks knowledge of both U.S. and world history, which has been on display many times over many years.

The introductory paragraph also highlights the importance of “America’s defences” and “our nation’s defence,” which continue to give the impression that the U.S. is a country under siege and vulnerable to attack from various enemies at any time. But given how much the U.S. spends on its military, there is probably no other country in the world more capable of defending itself.

But the language is the point. By constantly repeating the “we are under attack” line, fear is effectively created and maintained, especially the fear of anyone who doesn’t look or sound like Trump and his followers.

Using words to manipulate

Keeping with the wartime-like language, the introduction claims that the One Big Beautiful Bill “unleashes economic prosperity and empowers every American.” Such statements are already being shown to be untrue, as many millions of American are likely to be severely, negatively impacted by the legislation.

The introduction is followed by 10 statements that are, in effect, “product endorsements” published in obscure, pro-Trump media, like The National Hog Farmer, all expressing gushing enthusiasm and unqualified support for the points made in the introduction.

This new kind of in-depth linguistic analyses of the language of the world’s most powerful people can help us move beyond their obviously false and misleading statements and claims, to become more aware of how their words may be being used not to communicate — but to manipulate.

Andy Curtis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Big Beautiful Bill: Why Donald Trump is obsessed with the manipulative language of size – https://theconversation.com/big-beautiful-bill-why-donald-trump-is-obsessed-with-the-manipulative-language-of-size-259358

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elaine McWhirter, Chair, Melanoma/Skin Disease Site Group, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, and Associate Professor, Oncology, McMaster University

There is certainly growing awareness of the damaging effects of overexposure to the sun, including skin cancers.

Still, I see in both my medical practice as a skin cancer specialist and in the course of my research as an associate professor of oncology that there are still many harmful habits and ideas about tanning that still circulate.

As a result, many may think they’re already doing enough to look after themselves and their families when the incidence of skin cancer is actually growing. Clearly, we need to do more to stay safe, and that starts with knowledge.

Perhaps someday, we will look at lying on a beach slathered with oil in the same way we look at smoking cigarettes. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is also a carcinogen and, like smoking, is a modifiable risk factor for cancer.

Here are some sun facts to think about and act on:

• Being outdoors and in the shade is better than being in the direct sun, but even in the shade, one is still exposed to damaging UV rays, especially if there are nearby reflective surfaces, such as water or sand.

• Sun protection is necessary all year round. Damage can happen when people think July and August are the only months when it’s necessary to pay attention to sun exposure. Hauling out the bike during a winter thaw? Protect yourself. Spring gardening or fall raking and it’s only 10 degrees outside? It’s time for some protection. Check your local weather forecast for the UV index; if it’s three or greater, wear sunscreen.

• Sun exposure is cumulative over the course of a lifetime. If you had too much sun as a child or young adult, it’s even more important to protect yourself over the entire course of your adult life. Having two blistering sunburns as a child or young adult increases the lifetime chance of developing the most harmful form of skin cancer, melanoma, by 10 times.

• Any suntan or sunburn is evidence of sun damage. Developing a tan is the body’s response to harm to the DNA of cells in our skin. The persistent idea of a “healthy tan” is simply incorrect. When I see someone tanning, I see a future with premature wrinkles and risk of skin cancers, including melanoma. A burn is far more damaging. Avoid both.

• While fair-skinned people with red or blonde hair and blue or green eyes are the most susceptible to serious harm from the sun, all people, regardless of their skin, hair or eye colour, are vulnerable and should limit exposure.

• Sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50, applied every two to three hours, starting 30 minutes before exposure, is the most practical protection for exposed skin. Pick something you like, whether a lotion, stick or spray, and be sure to use enough. Reapply more often when you are very active outdoors, and hourly if in water. Remember when applying sunscreen to protect your feet, which is easy to forget in flip flops. I see a lot of ears and back of necks get missed as well!

• Wear a hat, of course, but also choose your hat carefully. Ball caps leave the ears and neck too exposed. The best hats have broad brims that go all the way around the head. The very best hats have a flap in the back that covers the neck.

• It is possible to experience sun damage even through your clothes. Special SPF clothing, made from purposely formulated material and labelled as such, is optimal for reducing sun exposure. A white cotton summer T-shirt offers an SPF of maybe four or five — a small fraction of the protection a good sunscreen or SPF clothing will provide.

• Though sun exposure does provide beneficial Vitamin D, it is better to use Vitamin D supplements year-round — something in the range of 600-800 IU is a good benchmark – rather than risking unprotected sun exposure.

• Using tanning beds is unhealthy and significantly increases the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers. A tanning bed can have a UV index in the 20s. Compare that to natural conditions, where 10 is considered very high.

• Cloud cover is deceptive. While there is a little protection in clouds, it’s less than most think. The sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays still get through and cause damage. Use sun protection even on cloudy days.

• Protecting children and helping them develop sun awareness is vital. If they are in and out of the water, they will need to reapply sunscreen more often. Babies under six months should not be using sunscreen and are especially vulnerable to sun damage; they should be kept out of direct sunlight. I recommend SPF-fabric covers for playpens and strollers.

• You can still get sun damage while travelling in a car with the windows rolled up. Front windshields do offer some protection, but side windows and even sunroofs, unless specifically tinted to protect from sun damage, can let in harmful UV rays.

• People exposed to the sun at higher altitudes, such as skiers, are receiving more UV exposure than people at lower altitudes and should protect themselves accordingly.

• Skiers, boaters, swimmers and fishers are all more susceptible to sun damage because they are both in the direct path of the sun and receive significant UV exposure from light reflecting off snow or water. Many people describe receiving a windburn from such outdoor activities when what they have is a sunburn.

• People who swim outdoors should seriously consider a special swimming shirt — like a rash guard or board shirt that surfers use — made from swimsuit fabric with SPF.

Remember to check your skin monthly for skin cancer using the ABCDE rule. Our warm weather season is short, and it’s important to enjoy the outdoors. The point isn’t to be sun-scared — just stay sun-safe.

Elaine McWhirter has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis,Regeron and Sanofi. She was a Board member of Melanoma Canada from 2015-2024.

– ref. Sun advice from a skin cancer researcher and physician – https://theconversation.com/sun-advice-from-a-skin-cancer-researcher-and-physician-260749