The Land Conservancy Of Bc: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Its a general Hindu tradition in Kerala to cremate their loved ones in backyard of own houses. Even lower castes in olden times were accustomed to conduct funeral rites in their compounds, though they have no specific area or place marked as funeral place in their household.The concept of public cemetery was strictly for non Hindu communities, mostly Abrahmic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, as there was no concept of common public grounds for Hindu cremation in Kerala.Most of Hindu communities cremate the loved ones behind their house that faces South side (Thekke Muttam). After cremation, they sow a tree in the site, mostly a mango sapling as a memorial to the deceased.Aasthi Thara (a raised platform made of stone or similar erected in the place where funeral pyre were set) is a common tradition across Hindus of Kerala, where they light lamps daily as part of ancestor worshipSome Hindus even errect a Sarcophagus grave like memorial in place where funeral rites were made, to remember their loved ones within the compound of the house. Its not a grave as such, rather a place where a portion of ash has been kept. Featured- Grave of Kalyanikutty Amma, wife of Late Kerala CM- K.Karunakaran at his ancestral home in Thrissur. Karunakaran was also cremated next to her and a grave was erected in his honorThose who don’t plant a mango sapling, they are likely to erect a Aasti Thara (ash pot platform) along with Holy Tulsi plant, where they can light a lamp on daily basis. In some parts of Kerala, a proper grave would be errected much like Christian graves, but not meant as a burial spot, rather a permanent grave to store a potion of ashes of all deceased in the family.However in recent past, public electrical crematoriums started coming up in city areas due to lack of space in cities to have funeral services back at home and pollution issue. However a good percentage of Malayalees don’t appreciate the concept of electrical crematorium as such and those who have enough land back at their ancestral homes or in rural side, will consider the option of traditional funeral rites with pyre back at home.The concept of Smashan was almost nil in Kerala and due to which castes associated with graveyard like Chandalas, Doms etc are also nil in Kerala. Though the concept of Chandala exist in Kerala, its a term often used to untouchables of most lowest order who does dirty jobs like manual scavenging etc, its never a term associated with people working cemetaries as the basic concept of cemetaries never existed.The reasons are likely to beContinuation of ancient customsIn ancient era, prior to entry of Vedic Brahminical Hinduism, the local customs were heavy into nature worship. And it used to be a social custom to cremate the deceased in one’s own house. Most of the southern states in that time, had this custom.The custom of a cremating on banks of a river or in a specific place was much Vedic trait, not a custom prevailing in Dravidian culture. The key reason was that, much of Dravidian traditions focused on worship of ancestors and spirits as equal to mainstream gods. The ancient belief was that, the soul of the deceased never leaves completely from their loved ones, rather stay back as a protecting spirit within the household forever. This was a concept against Brahminical Hinduism as their belief is that, the soul remains as a spirit (Pretha) only for few days and soon it gets liberated from all connections back with its deceased body and become a soul fit for reincarnated as a new life form.Dravidian believed that their ancestors attains a status of a demi god after becoming a spirit to protect the family.However slowly this ancient concept got removed when Brahminical faith had its supremacy in South. The typical Brahminical concepts associated with death became common in South by 10th century.However in Kerala, instead of blind opposition, many concepts of Dravidians and Aryans were synthesized and accepted as common rites. This is primarily because of massive cultural and social intermingling.So essentially while Kerala Nampoothiris do believe in traditional Vedic belief that the spirit of an ancestor remains in earth only for a limited period, they equally accepted and considered Dravidian belief of perpetuity of spirits within a family as a cultural norm of local faith which they too adopted. Most of other communities continue to believe, the spirits of their loved one continues back at home to protect and guide them. So ancestor worship is an essential hallmark of Kerala Hindu traditions.Feeding all ancestors annually is one of the most well preserved traditions of Malayalee Hindus across Kerala apart from specific sradhhams of individual deceasedThe social customs include annual worship of ancestors when every Hindu Malayalee feeds all their known and unknown ancestors on the New Moon night of Karkidakom Month of Malayalam calendar (Karkidaka Vavu). Normally in other parts of country, only Sraddha (anniversary rites of the deceased) exists, that too maximum of 16 years from date of death apart from occasional rites done when visiting some sacred spots like Haridwar or Kashi etc. In Kerala, Sraddham is also celebrated with no limit period along with Vavu and Shivarathri, as Malayalees believe, the spirits of ancestors are always with them.So the cremation also continues within the compound of the house as done in Dravidian era by every caste, including Nampoothiris.Use of belief as a land conservation tool.One key reason why Brahmins accepted and allowed the traditional beliefs of Dravidian culture was a method of land conservation. In Kerala, land is too scarce and every community tried to consolidate and protect the land holdings from getting fragmented through any form of partitions. The social customs like Matrilineal traditions of Nairs/Samantha Kshatriyas as well as legal marriage restricted to eldest member of Nampoothiri family were all methods to avoid any issue of partitions and effective consolidation of land.One effective way to make every member of family attached to the land is highlighting the emotional connection of the land by linking with ancestors. Even today many people within a family opposes partition highlighting it as a resting place of one’s mother or grandmother etc. It was too tough in 1930s to divide the joint family houses (Tharavads) and even litigations against it was fought citing the existence of resting place of deceased (even though Hindu traditions don’t have such a concept as per se). The emotional connection of having a grave within the house helped conserving land in a big way for centuries.No concept of shamshan ghatsIn Kerala, none of the river banks are used for funeral rites unlike what one sees in Gangetic plains. Nor there is any dedicated Smashanam (graveyard). The likely reason could be associating Smashanam (Cemetery) with Christian/Jew faith. One must understand, there was Jewish settlement since 582 BC in Kerala. Christianity came to Kerala since 52 AD. The tradition of burying a deceased in a common graveyard near to a place of worship was seen as traditions of these communities, which Brahminical Hindu faith called as Mleccha traditions (foreign as in original Sanskrit meaning). Naturally they found hard to do the same. In Gangetic plains, they were first to do such traditions, which effectively became a Hindu tradition as such. However Vedic Hinduism gained supremacy much later in Kerala, almost post 6th-7th century. By this time, already other traditions exist, so replicating the same traditions here gives a different meaning all together.And there was not much need for that. With ample land within household for such rites, whats the point in taking to a common graveyard. Even for lower castes who didn’t have own lands, still had dwelling rights over the land they resided with a degree of traditional rights. So they too did what upper castes does in many ways.However there are few exemptions like Ivarmadom community graveyard in Thrissur, much on banks of River Nila (the cradle of Vedic civilization in Kerala) etc which happens to be relics of ancient Vedic practices before the synthesis with Dravidian customs.I have seen many Non Malayalees commenting its a curse of Sankaracharya that made so after Nampoothiris excommunicated him and he had to do the funeral of his mother all alone.But hardly any Malayalee have heard this myth in Kerala, as its mostly a tale heard outside Kerala. Probably it could be an myth invented to justify the unusual custom in the state.However it doesn’t appear true. Yes, Shankaracharya did the cremation of his mother all alone as he was excommunicated from the caste. And it was against the social custom to participate in any events related to an outcaste as such. But Sankaracharya did the rites as like any other Malayalee, within his house. There wasn’t anything unusual in that, as it was a social custom prevailing even then.There are many difference in funeral rites of Malayalee Hindus, as its designed in view of traditional customs associated with the land. Ofcourse, there are lot of similarities with North Indian traditions too, as Kerala has accepted Vedic Faith as mainstream Hinduism. But essentially due to mixture with traditional Dravidian customs, many modifications has happened, that has to be viewed in its distinctive style and legacy.

Because the First Nations have Treaty Rights they signed with the British Crown, and the white men don’t. I have a lot of trouble explaining this to people who think we took all their land away from them. We didn’t do that.The British Crown signed a series of treaties with them that allowed us to settle on their land and build our houses and farm, and in return the Crown agreed to let them hunt and fish on Crown land in perpetuity. That means forever.In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a series of Treaties signed in 1760-61 by Mi’kmaq and the British Crown are still valid. Known as the Peace and Friendship Treaties, they provide that Mi’kmaq have the right to harvest and sell fish, wildlife, and wild fruit and berries to provide a moderate livelihood.[1]White men need a fishing license from the government to fish and a hunting license to hunt. The government can revoke that license at any time for any reason. Treaty rights have to be renegotiated with the First Nations. Have they been renegotiated? If not, they still stand. They can hunt and fish and sell the produce to provide a moderate livelihood. If the fish and lobster run short, it is the white men that lose their licenses, not the First Nations.The courts have said the government can regulate Native catches, but they have to negotiate the limits with the First Nations. If they don’t do that, there are no limits and the First Nations can catch as many as they want. If the government is serious about preserving the fish, they might have to talk to them about how much they want to pay them not to fish. It might be a lot of money.The same is true on the West Coast. The First Nations there have fishing rights, but the white men don’t, they only have fishing licenses, and if the fish run short, the white fishermen might have to find something else to do for a living. They can however farm and dig for minerals since the First Nations did sign those rights away if they signed a treaty. If they didn’t, the BC government is screwed. BC refused to sign a treaty with them for over 100 years, but now the First Nations have lawyers.I worked in the Land department of an oil company, and we had to follow the chain of title back to the beginning. If we didn’t find a First Nations treaty to relinquish the mineral rights, we had a Title Defect, which means BC didn’t own them. Oh, damn, the BC government is going to have to negotiate a new treaty to produce oil on most of the land in BC! Alberta and Saskatchewan are okay since there are treaties for all the land.The First Nations still hold hunting and fishing rights in all the Crown land and oceans in BC because they never ceded them in their treaties.Footnotes[1] Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs

When you utterly destroy another country and wipe it off the face of the Earth, it’s not likely you would take any lessons from them. To the Romans, their victory over Carthage would have validated everything they believed and invalidated everything their enemies stood for.Rome was a different kind of economy, anyway. The Carthaginians developed from a Phoenician colony, and they were a seafaring people. It’s no different than today, where the Royal Navy ruled the seas for centuries, and then were eclipsed by the navy of one of their own former colonies, who inherited their traditions.Rome’s economy relied on conquering other peoples and forcing them into a subservient role. Later, it would Romanize those peoples and they would become part of Roman society, meaning they needed to subjugate other lands and peoples. Rome survived off those two things—slave labor, and exploiting conquered lands. The lands of the former Carthaginian state and Egypt provided most of the food and many other resources for the Roman heartland in Italy. One reason why Italy has never hosted a first-rank world power since then is because it doesn’t have the resources for it. A big reason why it fell is because it lost those granaries—Egypt went to Arcadius in AD 395, and the former Carthaginian lands were subject to constant rebellion before being lost for good to Gaiseric and the Vandals between 429 and 439. He defeated a last-ditch effort by both halves of the Roman Empire to reconquer those lands in 468, and that was effectively the end of Roman power in the west.Rome did assimilate the peoples it conquered for much of its history. Trajan was from Hispania, Diocletian from Illyricum, and Septimius Severus was actually from the former Carthaginian realm itself—and spoke fluent Punic! Once these peoples became Romans, they were no longer people that Rome could exploit; they had gone from exploited to the class of exploiters.This put Rome in the same boat with so many other historical empires, and none ever mastered the problem. They had to either fundamentally change their society, or they had to keep expanding militarily. They were unable to accomplish the former, and after the Battle of Teutoburger Forest in 9 AD, they stopped attempting the latter. Later conquests in the east by Trajan and Severus proved ephemeral. Rome did very well to endure centuries longer. The Umayyad Caliphate faced the same problems after Constantinople and Tours (718 and 732 AD) halted its expansion, and didn’t last 40 more years, falling in 750. The Neo-Assyrian Empire under Ashurbanipal (669–631 BC) succeeded in subduing everything and everyone around them, but even he ultimately failed. His campaigns bankrupted the state and ravaged the lands to unprofitability. After ‘Nineveh’s Napoleon’ died, Assyria’s enemies all rebelled, and 17 years after Ashurbanipal died, Nineveh was wiped off the Earth, and an empire half a millennium old was gone.Caracalla, Severus’ son and successor, tried a different tack. In 212, he made every freeborn inhabitant of the Roman Empire a citizen, which meant they were all subject to Roman taxes. The problem was that Caracalla was an incompetent fool on par with Commodus, and also that he made millions of people who had not yet been assimilated into Roman culture as citizens. But now they were citizens, entitled to all of the privileges of such, and they helped cause a further breakdown in Roman society.Furthermore, the creation of a mercantile economy like that of Carthage was more than a little problematic in Roman times. Carthage could do it because they were a regional power in a multipolar Mediterranean area. But once the whole area came under Roman rule—they even called it Mare Nostrum, “Our Sea”—the only way to do a mercantile economy of that nature would have involved international trade.That was a little hard to do, given the great distances and the state of shipbuilding technologies in that time. International trade did exist, but it was fraught with great risk and danger. The type of society you envision, on a global or even Eurasian scale, wasn’t even possible until the 18th century, and even then there’s a long list of lost “clipper ships” from a time no more than 130 years ago.And the Romans were a very conservative society, not a great technological one. The idea of developing new shipbuilding technologies to facilitate greater international trade that they didn’t think they’d ever need is something that would have never occurred to them. As long as they could get around Mare Nostrum, what more did they need?