Dodge Charger Daytona SRT Banshee

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

Eye-catching

I love pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and crossovers. So much so, that back in 2020 I even did a write-up entirely on non-utilitarian vehicles that should become all-electric utility vehicles. Yes, that was me. I did that. And proudly, too. Between now and then, a lot of utility vehicles have either been unveiled or are even on sale right now. The Hummer EV, Ford Lightning, Chevrolet Silverado EV, and Lotus Eletre to name a few. Though I am happy to see so many electric utility vehicles coming out, I found none of those vehicles personally exciting enough to warrant writing an entire write-up on them. Well, the Lotus Eletre actually did almost excite me enough to write about it. It seems as though I may have been distracted with other things at the time, however. When Tesla’s Cybertruck was unveiled back in 2019, it smashed the Internet. Yes, I see what I did there. Now last week while browsing the Internet, I saw Dodge make the headlines over a car unveiling. It was the Dodge Charger Daytona SRT Banshee. I did not watch the full unveiling until today, August 23, 2022. That machine is eye-catching!

Unveiling

The Unveilings were split over 3 days: Day 1: Current Muscle, Day 2: Gateway Muscle, Day 3: Next Gen Muscle. I did not watch the Day 1 and Day 2 videos because I could care less about the V8 going away. In fact, I could care less about ICEs going away in general. If anything, I would say, “Took you long enough!”. No seriously, some automotive brands have been serious laggards in the electric vehicles race, and I have criticized them for it on more than one occasion. Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini, General Motors, and you guessed it: Stellantis. The Day 3 stream starts off with a brief introduction with the history of the Dodge brand. The gist of it? 2 American brothers quit their day job to put their side hustle into full production. Sure sounds like what a lot of entrepreneurs do when their side hustle starts taking serious traction. During a part of it, Timothy Kuniskis said that some people were ticked off when Dodge revealed the Dodge Hornet. The reason? Critics accused Dodge of being a sellout and making a boring compact utility vehicle that blends right into the sea of CUVs. However, he was also able to shut down what people considered “selling out” by telling the audience that there are 14,000 preorders for the Hornet. This just goes to prove that Internet critics do not gauge the success of a product or service, and that they are often nothing more than an obnoxious vocal minority.

Alfa Romeo Jealous?

While on the topic of the Dodge Hornet, I heard a word that Alfa Romeo is allegedly annoyed and jealous about Dodge “copying their homework” and being more successful with it. If this is actually true, it is both comical and non-sensical. The Dodge Hornet and Alfa Romeo Tonale are both compact utility vehicles that share the same platform. They are even built within the same factory in Italy. Yes, a Dodge made in Italy sounds a little weird, but the Jeep Renegade is made in Italy too, so not too surprising anymore. Dodge is not just cheaper, but has far more awareness in North America than Alfa Romeo does. If Alfa Romeo really wants to get a profit off its badge-engineered Tonale, perhaps they might want to try and convince Stellantis to not make them have to share so many guts, bits, and pieces with non-luxury marques. If Alfa Romeo is not in a position to do that, they should at least do more to offer a more premium experience with what they have to work with.

Back To Discussing The Unveiling

This is the EV that you did not see coming, but you will definitely hear coming, the Dodge man claims. Yes, he is certainly right. Before the electric muscle cars arrives, we can hear the low-pitched, futuristic hum of the vehicle. There was also lots of red lighting, smoke, and some electro revs. The Dodge comes out to drive in a path that momentarily takes it outside, before returning back to the presentation room. Wow!

My Thoughts

Timothy was not kidding when he said that Dodge wanted to create a car that looks like a Dodge, sounds like a Dodge, and drives like a Dodge. Well, the driving experience has yet to be proven, as nobody has taken it for a test drive. Or perhaps journalists probably already might have, but may currently be under embargo. As for sounding like a Dodge, there is certainly a lot of mixed opinions on this. In general, I think I am seeing a bit more hate, as well as “Will we be able to turn that off?”. Too many people are erroneously calling the sound fake, when it is actually a naturally produced sound from the car’s chamber. I believe that too many people have not taken the chance to actually watch the video or at least read an entire article on it properly. For this reason, I am now officially under the impression that if most people are hating the sound because it is produced “fakely” rather than the how the sound sounds to the ears, that they are vocal minority haters. It is perfectly fine to dislike the sound, but to hate without knowing more on how it is produced, is rather nutty. For me I personally, I love the sound, particularly its idle sound. It sounds like a mean, vibrating synth. The rev sound? Does not sound as cool, but it is alright. Both sounds would be better if they had more of that muscle car rumble to them. 

The looks? This is where just about everybody agrees that it looks A-amazing! The front end screams retro-done-with-a-modern-touch, while the back has super cool rectangular racetrack taillights. The interior looks good. Nothing special, but looks good. Some commenters pointed out that they should have an option for a bench seat in the back. I agree with this. If Dodge went as far to give it all-wheel drive and a hatch, they should go with bench seats for the back. A lot of concepts that have buckets seats in vehicles like this tend to become bench seats in production models. Therefore, I do not think people will have to worry too much about that. I have also seen some say that Dodge should offer a 4-door version of this. Seeing as though Dodge announced the end of the current Charger and Challenger, it would make sense to make an electric Challenger the 2-door option, and the Charger the 4-door option. Or perhaps they could just do one model with an option for both.

No Frunk?

Not once did Dodge open the front trunk in the presentation. This may be because they do not want to expose certain parts yet, but it raises a concern: is it really true that there is no frunk? If yes, then that is really bad and sad. Backpacks are useful. Frunks are useful. I tried to Google the answer to this, but there is no definite answer. Only 1 or 2 sources I think said that the concept vehicle does not have a frunk. This implies that the production model probably will. I say that it absolutely should! For me personally, I will not even consider an electric model of a particular car if it has no frunk. Why should I? The point of losing a giant, disgusting, engine is not just about zero emissions, but making vehicles even more functional. If Dodge cannot make the Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust system without it getting in the way, they would be better off just forgetting about it altogether. The Tesla Model S has a frunk. The Lucid Air has a frunk. Now why am I comparing premium marks to a non-premium mark? Because though Dodge is not a luxury brand, it is still very much a performance brand. Enough so, that there are countless videos of Dodges racing against the luxury marques, even if they lose the race. Electric vehicles must have frunks. To not include one is a waste of engineering, resources, and opportunity. BWM and Mercedes-Benz, I am looking at you, and I hope you are sweating in guilt for committing the great sin of not putting frunks in your current all-electric vehicles.

Conclusion

Slam, drift, drag, and donut! Those are all race modes that Dodge intends to put into their cars. The Dodge Charger Daytona SRT Banshee is one fine-looking muscle car. Dodge did a fine job at making their electric concept as cool as they possibly can. Since we are now in the age of electric cars, I wonder if Dodge will put the Dodge ZEO into production? I love scissor and gullwing doors on vehicles and the Dodge Zeo has just that: 4 scissor doors. Very cool, if you ask me. While the Dodge Zeo does not have the coolest-looking face in town, the mere fact that it has scissor doors integrated into it, straight from the factory, would make me choose it over the Banshee. Yes, for real. Doors aside, it looks pretty darn good, too. Some might say the shape is a little goofy, but that is ok. 

 

Animals Wearing Clothes

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

No Pictures In This Article

Viewers that eagerly clicked on this link in hopes of seeing well-dressed cats and dogs will be disappointed to hear that this article itself does not contain any pictures. Rather, the purpose is to discuss why people do it, the history, safety, culture, types of animals and so forth.

Scientific Term

The scientific word for this is anthropomorphism: the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a non-human entities. A drawing of a smiling apple, with legs, and arms waving at the viewer? Anthropomorphic. A singing saxophone flying through the sky with great white wings? Anthropomorphic. Examples of anthropomorphism are seen everyday all around life whether it be real common examples with coats or boots on dogs, or cartoon and mascot examples with internationally known icons such as Sonic The Hedgehog, Tom & Jerry, Donald Duck, Michelin Man, and Energizer.

Why Do People Put Clothes On Animals?

Mankind has been long fascinated with animals. Naturally, this means that people will bond with their animals and project some human emotions onto them: giving them names, special toys, equipment and in some cases clothes. With the presence of the Internet and even dedicated Instagram, Twitter, and Subreddits solely for animals in clothes, it has made the phenomenon all the more common. Some people will put clothes on animals because they think it is cute, stylish, and expressive. Others will put clothes on animals for more functional purposes namely protection and identification. This brings up a question: is it uncomfortable for the animal?

Cruelty?

Is it cruel to dress up animals? Some people have concerns about animals getting hurt or uncomfortable when more material is unnaturally added to their bodies. Truth is it varies upon the circumstance and what type of clothing article is being added to the animal’s body. If the animal is clearly responding with discomfort by trying to rub it off, biting at it, twitching, or making distressed sounds, then these are telltale signs that the animal is not enjoying it. It should also be reminded that it may be a matter of the animal not being used to wearing clothes. In this scenario, it is important to be patient with the animal, try different clothes, and be mindful of how the animal responds to the outfits. Even with this in mind, some veterinary technicians will warn that dogs, for the most part would rather not wear clothes at all. With working animals it is crucial that they do wear collars, harnesses, or some piece of article that warns people to either not touch them, or to identify that it belongs to law enforcement such as police.

Dogs

For dogs with short hair that live in cold climates, it is recommend to have them wear canine jackets or sweaters to prevent cold-related complications. Additionally, some owners will even put paw footwear on their feet to protect them from abrasive salt in the winter used to melt ice. Similarly, owners that live in highly urbanized areas may also put dog shoes on their pets to prevent the dog’s pads from getting scorched from the hot pavement. Some owners may opt for grass walks, anointing the feet with certain products, or walking during cooler times of the day.

Cats

What about cats? Is the cat in the red dress enjoying it, or the other one in the striped shirt? A doctor said that she has never seen a cat wearing a costume or clothing piece that looked happy per his facial and body language. She further stated that costumes are also very dangerous for cats to wear, because the elastic or binding that holds the costume on can cut off circulation and result in damage to, or possible loss, of a limb or tail. The same person did admit that an exception is that if your pet is trained to tolerate a collar, that owners can give them a holiday-themed breakaway collar. If it is not obvious enough, this has by no means stopped people from giving their cats complete outfits. Truth be told, whether people agree on giving cats clothes or not, both parties could agree that if the animal is accustomed to it, it is only very temporary, and the materials are not too tight or dangerous, it can make for a highly amusing, deeply satisfying experience for the owner and even for the cat, so long as they are rewarded for their photoshoot.

Birds In Clothes

Cats and dogs tend to get most of the attention in the animal fashion world. Birds also happen to have a lot of outfits available for them, too. Parrots in particular dominant the avian fashion scene. Is there any practical reason for birds to wear clothes? In the case of free-flight birds, a bird harness is a commonly seen accessory placed on a bird’s body to prevent the bird from taking off at the wrong time. If the bird happens to be a bird of prey as a falcon or eagle, bird hoods are used on them to keep them calm. Raptors are not used to sudden changes in light, sounds, and movements, thus making them particularly easy to startle. Bird collars are commonly used on parrots recovering from surgery or a wound, and to stop self-mutilating birds from doing further damage. Due to the presence of a beak and wings, getting a bird to wear clothes can be even more challenging, since they can fly. Having a bird’s trust is required for ease of placement with accessories and clothes. Aside from practical matters, bird collars may be placed on a bird simply for laughs and entertainment or seasonal themes. The same thing can be said for birds in suits, dresses, hoodies, and hats. Hats are by far the most common accessory to place on birds because it is not only visually amusing, but easier for both the bird and human alike. Hat-wearing birds are often seen with fedoras, straw hats, caps, or conical hats. High-Vis Safety Chicken Jackets are also apparently a thing. Not terribly common, but exist. On the subject of chickens, as well as ducks and geese, people that opt for keeping a pet of these species indoors may place bird nappies on them when they are left to roam at large. 

Reptiles In Clothes

The mammals and birds that are commonly kept as pets have plenty of clothes and accessories made for them. Some owners will even affectionately refer to them as furbabies or feather babies. Is the same true for commonly kept reptiles, exempli gratia, snakes and lizards? Absolutely! In fact, bearded dragons, iguanas, geckos, and skinks wearing clothes is apparently so amusing to reptile enthusiasts, that an e-Store called Fashion Brand Company, has a section dedicated to clothes for lizards. Owners can buy dresses, clown suits, jump suits, sweaters, jackets, and gowns for their beloved scaly friends. With bearded dragons particularly, there is such a sheer amount of Internet images and videos of them wearing clothes and accessories, to the point that they can be viewed as the “Cats & Dogs” of the reptile fashion world. What about snakes? Do they have clothes and accessories available for them? Certainly! Plenty of choices, too. When people accessorize snakes, it frequently done by putting a hat with a strap over the serpent’s head. Snakes wearing hats is apparently popular. Popular enough to the point that a massively popular Subreddit called r/SnakesWithHats exists.

With cats and dogs, there are scenarios where accessories or clothes actually makes sense. With reptiles, most people do not talk them for walks, nor do they need to concerned about collars to make it easier to identify or find them. What purpose does it serve to put clothes on ancient, scaly animals? Unsurprisingly, the same reasons people do it for feathered and furry ones: because it is funny, cute, and amusing. Though reptiles have come a long way from being generally stigmatized as unfriendly, unsuitable pets, snakes in particular are still a common phobia to many people. Dressing snakes in crochets, vests, hats, and shirts shows that they too, can look cute, funny, and amusing in their own ways. Shows that they are not all venomous, man-eating, cold-hearted monsters. Still, some critics express concerns in that reptiles have absolutely no need to ever wear clothes, and that it can stress them out and hurt them. As with other animals, the same rules of caution apply with reptiles wearing clothes: do not use clothes too tight or toxic, do not force the animal, be slow and gentle, and only keep the clothes on for short period of times, with an example being a photoshoot. Bug-eating, rodent-constricting, greenery-eating, scaly creatures are not things people expect to see in bunny ears, cowboy hats, and crochets, thus making it more eye-catching when they do wear clothes. 

History Of Animals Wearing

Accessorizing animals goes all the way back the times of the Ancient Egyptians. They did not dress up their canines the way later people do, but did put collars on them. The tomb of an Egyptian nobleman named Maihar Piri who lived around 1440 BC had the depiction of an accessorized dog. Portrayals of dogs with collars or ribbons were also found in other tombs. Cats were even more fancily dressed with tombs clearly showing them in fancy collars, bands, and yes, even ear piercings. This likely has to do with Bastet and the sacred relations they had with cats in general. Cats and dogs in early China and Japan had also been depicted with collars. Particularly in Japan’s case, royal Samurai dogs even got matching armor. When the Europeans started dressing their animals, this is where things got really interesting. European royalty were the first to fully dress their dogs in clothes. Looking at their paintings, their dogs can be seen wearing collars, coats, and necklaces richly embellished with precious stones and metals. 

Here To Stay

Whatever can be dressed, has been dressed. Even rats, chelonians, elephants, alligators, cattle and usual animals have been dressed before. And to no surprise, primates. Of all animals, they happen to fit most human clothes most naturally owing to having such similar physiques. Whether people like it or not, animals wearing clothes is here to stay. Not only is it a highly profitable industry, it makes animals owners and admirers smile. Most of them. One thing that is certain, is that it does not fail to get people commenting or thinking: good or bad.

Universal Basic Income

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income, often abbreviated UBI,  is a government-sponsored program in which every citizen or eligible resident would receive an unconditional flat monthly payment. Their income, employment status, or productivity levels would not be taken into consideration. The purpose behind this type of universal payment is to reduce the cost of living stress faced by a country’s residents, which would allow them to focus on education, improving their job skills, dealing with personal matters, or other things while having enough income to meet basic living requirements. Since UBI is indiscriminate of status, it ensures every resident gets something and that nobody gets left from missing a criteria, two, or three, the way other payments or programs do. In the most common UBI implementation, identical monthly payments are made to all individuals. The tax system then ensures that funds are returned to the system from those with higher incomes. 

History

“No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food.”
— Thomas More

The international COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 and onward, and the significantly increased costs of living has brought more attention to Basic Income than ever before. However, the concept of it is not new. Thomas More introduced the concept of guaranteed income in his 1516 book, Utopia. Since then, many people over the centuries have advocated some form of basic sustenance. An early example would be Thomas Jefferson in 1776 who believed in giving any propertyless individual 20 hectares of land willing to farm it. A recent notable person is American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, whose signature policy is what he calls the “Freedom Dividend“, a Universal Basic Income in the form of $1,000 monthly for every American adult.

Experiments, But No Full Commitment

Many countries from around the world have experimented with various projects and pilots. As of August 2022, there are no countries that have a permanent Universal Basic Income in place. Canada, the United States, Brazil, Kenya, France, Spain, Netherlands, Finland, India, and Japan are some of the countries that have experimented with it. In Canada, there has been 2 forms experimental income: The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) and Ontario Basic Income Pilot. Though the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit was not a universal income, it has highlighted numerous topics surrounding the need for a permanent basic income that does not leave anyone behind the way it did.

The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (MINCOME) was conducted between 1974 and 1979 under the joint sponsorship of Canada and Manitoba. It was geared toward measuring the results of low-income families in Dauphin and rural Manitoba. Over the four years that the program ended up running in the 1970s, an average family in Dauphin was guaranteed an annual income of 16,000 Canadian dollars. The results? Rates of hospitalizations fell 8.5%, improvements in mental health, a rise in the number of children completing high school, and more businesses started up during the time. Most notably, it did not cause people to stop working. The exceptions were new mothers and high school students. For new mothers it meant more time for them to take care of the home and children. For high school students they could finally focus on completing school to land better careers, as opposed to dropping out of school for farm and factory jobs. The results after financial security ended? Small businesses went defunct, anxiety returned, and some people even left Dauphin good. MINCOME was closed down in 1979 under the Progressive Conservative of Manitoba government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. They cited oil price shocks, inflation, and the increased number of people seeking the assistance, more than what the project budgeted for. The results of the study at the time were not revealed, hence what led to the governments making this misinformed assumption. It was not until 2008, when Evelyn Forget revealed the results significantly positive effects it had. The papers had been previously locked away and abandoned.

The Ontario Basic Income Pilot (OBIP) was announced by Premier Kathleen Wynne in Hamilton in April 2017. The first phase to enroll participants, was successfully completed in April 2018, with full participation across the three pilot sites:

1.Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County
2.Thunder Bay, along with the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, Township of Shuniah, Municipality of Neebing, Township of Conmee, Township of O’Connor, and Township of Gillies
3. Lindsay

The purpose of the pilot was to test how a basic income might help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs, while improving outcomes in the following: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, and employment and labour market participation. Unfortunately, The three-year, $150-million program was scrapped by Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government, Doug Ford, in July 2018. At the time, then-social services minister Lisa MacLeod, stated the decision was made because the program was failing to help people become “independent contributors to the economy.” Predictably, the decision and statements faced intense criticism, with many particularly pointing out that the experiment did not even get time to gather results, and that the PC violated the promise to allow the program to finish. Former Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called the decision to end the project absolutely disgraceful. Some participants have spoken out about how receiving the basic income had improved their lives — and how the program’s premature termination has left them fretting about the future.

Why

At this point, a critical question must be asked: why? Why is there no country on the planet with Universal Basic Income? Why do income experiments never turn into permanent programs, despite countless factual studies, reports, and organizations specialized in basic income with massive datasheets and media, that prove its efficacy? 3 persistent reasons:

1. Excessive paranoia that nobody will work, thus causing a labour shortage.

2. There is no money to fund it.

3. It will make inflation worse

Labour Shortage Paranoia

This is by far the most common point against Universal Basic Income. If implemented it will make people not want to work because they are given free money, causing millions to quit their jobs en masse. Utterly false! Experiments in Canada and around the world have proven that a guaranteed income of the sort, made people more willing to take risks with starting businesses, or finishing school allowing them to pursue more advanced careers. The real problem at play is not a labour shortage, but a wage shortage. If businesses truly cared that much about retaining and gaining employees, they would not only raise wages, but also treat workers better. Make them feel valued. Make them feel safe. Make them feel like there is a purpose. And particularly relevant to these times of international pandemics, an option to work full-time from home, for jobs that can be done remotely. UBI allows people to have more bargaining power, which drives healthy competition for businesses to up their wages and treatment practices. Bullying, intimidating, and using demeaning tactics to get people into working is counterproductive, and creates cycles of toxic work, desperation, burnout, and resignations. The mere fact that society is more afraid of jobs vacancies going unfilled, than private pockets being topped up, is what people should really be frightened about. The real common cause of labour shortages are things such as an ageing work force retiring at a higher rate than the working population can grow, graduates taking longer to graduate or secure work, insufficient immigration levels, and others.

Too Expensive

Critics are quick to point out how expensive implementing Universal Basic Income would be. It is easy to look at the numbers and say that $50 – 90 billion in the case of Canada, or 2.8 to 3.1 trillion in America’s situation is an astronomical amount of money. Indeed it is. What critics fail to point out is that UBI money would go right back into the economy. People that previously did not have purchasing power, will now have it. The more people there are with money, the more money can be spent on goods and services. This creates jobs, economics stimulus, allows more people to focus on school to pursue more specialized careers, and a vast assortment of other benefits. UBI is not even about printing new money; rather it is about allocating existing money directly to a nation’s citizens. Redistribution of income and wealth from some individuals and businesses to citizens through social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, or monetary policies is by far the easiest way to get it done. Saying it is too expensive is a lie. It is lack of political will. It is poverty and the current programs that are supposed to combat it that are extremely expensive.

Inflation

The inflation argument is based on the myth that in order to fund Universal Basic Income, the government would have to print billions of new dollars, thus making the cost of everything go up in the process. This has already been debunked numerous times, including within this write-up itself. UBI does not require an additional excess amount of money. Believers of this myth either do not even know what inflation is or intentionally deny that UBI can feasibly done through redistribution of existing money. Inflation is when the total value of currency increases faster than the total value of goods and services in the economy. This causes the price of goods and services to rise, in attempt to get that excess money spent. While in theory it sounds good, it leads to overconsumption, hoarding commodities, thus causing a vicious battle of even more inflation and consumer shortages. On the opposite side of the spectrum, deflation happens when the money in circulation remains, while there is an excess of goods and services causing the value of it to go up. Too much deflation will cause people to hold onto money, leading to a decrease in consumer spending, lowered business profits, pushing unemployment, and makes the economy shrink. Therefore, a small, consistent amount of inflation is actually good. Even if UBI were to be funded with new money, it would balance itself out because more people with purchasing power means manufacturers and businesses will be able to scale up accordingly with the good and services they offer to keep things balanced. If hundreds of billions can be printed to go to many other sources including banks, bureaucrats and CEOs, without causing inflation, this same money can certainly be redistributed in better ways. 

Inefficacy Of Existing Programs

“A one-size-fits-all cheque is not going to end the discrimination or poor workplace standards that follow around low-income workers.” — Critic
There are several things wrong with this statement. Firstly, it falls once again into the persistent myth that Universal Basic Income is a handout to make people dodge work. Secondly, it assumes UBI touts itself as the panacea for society’s problems. That is not the point of UBI. Informed UBI supporters are aware and admit that this is not point of UBI. The purpose of UBI is to ensure that nobody falls through the gaps by not meeting certain criteria. An extremely common problem with present anti-poverty programs. UBI certainly will not make poor workplace and discrimination disappear in the snapping of a finger. It will, however, give people more bargaining power to refuse terrible workplaces, and push them change their practices and pay. This will put the needed pressure on business to create a competition that aims for the top. To assume UBI is supposed to be a welfare handout that would rapidly brush problems away, akin to that of a mythical winged being scattering sparkles, rainbows, and gold is both condescending and nonsensical.

I am a single mother who has chosen to stay home to raise my children. Yes, money does help. I refuse to accept social assistance because they treat you like a criminal, the staff are vicious towards the people they serve. Period. UBI would work. The reasons people are poor are societal. Middle and upper class people seem to believe it’s a choice to be poor. Their parents raised them to ignore and have contempt towards poverty. — Anonymous Mother

While this mother’s comment obviously does not reflect how all staff or classes treat people, as some can be nice, it does highlight a significant and extremely common reality: embarrassment and stigmatization. A lot of people, whether they are rich or not, look down very heavily on people using disability and welfare programs. They view them as unproductive leeches who drain the working population’s life force and money. On top of this, these very same programs that are supposed to help people on welfare ironically keep most of them poor, known as the poverty trap. This is because the programs themselves do not even pay enough for these individuals to sufficiently meet their needs. It can be argued for welfare that it is supposed to temporary, which it is, but disability on the other hand can be either permanent or temporary. Here is where things get very distorted: When these individuals do attempt to work, they get their benefits clawed once they make a certain amount of money, which itself is not even enough for basic survival. This forces them to have to have to work reduced hours to keep the pay, but live with substandard income, or completely forgo their benefit. If the individual is disabled, this is not practical and can be rather dangerous.

Society must not bully and intimidate the disabled, poor, and vulnerable into working. It should be securing them and making sure their basic needs are properly met at all times without embarrassing and stigmatizing them.  Majority of people do not choose to become disabled. They are either born with a condition, or something environmental like an accident can cause it. Anyone could become disabled; poor, middle-classed, and rich. The difference? If a rich person becomes injured, permanent or not, they have access to top-notch doctors, often private staff, to make sure they are given the best condition at all times. On top of this, they have all their benefits and royalties that still gives them more money than some people working an entire year. The middle class and poor? Not so much. Even if the healthcare is free, they do not get the same quick access and specialized care as easily as a wealthy person could.

Let It Go

People need to let go of this mindset that every single person: healthy, bent, crooked, sick and all must work. It is unrealistic and callous. Some people are never going to work. Some people are never going to be employable. Perhaps the general definition of work itself may be problematic: going to an office or business to be told what to do under a clock and supervision. Work can take on many forms. It can be as traditionally described, but done remotely. It can also be done independently without supervision, with the individual setting the term, scope and pay; independent-contracting. Some people will never end up being useful to society in anyway at all, despite all the efforts to help them. Are these type of people the majority? Thankfully not. If that were the case, the world would not make it to this present time in history. Could it be that if some people had a guaranteed consistent income for proper sustenance, that even if they do not make a “good employee” that they might good keeper around a neighborhood? A good volunteer? Yes, people can be valuable to society in other ways than working through a job. Nobody asked to be born. Nobody asked for a price tag on food, water, shelter, and necessities. If society can make sure to put a price tag on everything, it can guarantee an income to pay for the basics. It is all a matter of will.

Emancipation

Disclosure: Millennium River is an independent, professional website that uses hyperlinks. Some of these hyperlinks are affiliate links. When you click and purchase a product(s) through these links, I may earn a commission on qualifying sales. This is done at no extra expense to you. Consider also supporting this website via PayPal. Unless it is clearly stated, the content is not sponsored.

What Does That Word Even Mean?

Emancipation is the process of giving people social or political freedom and rights. Freeing from restraint, control, or the power of another.

Emancipation Day

This historic day paved the way to freeing over 800,000 enslaved Africans and their descendants in Canada, parts of the Caribbean, Africa, and South America. However, this only applied to children under the age of 6. Others still had to continue serving their former owners unpaid, for 40 hours a week. It not until July 31, 1838 that all enslaved people across the British Empire finally gained their freedom at midnight on that day. Since then, August 01 has been commemorated in many parts of the world, including through celebrations of freedom across Canada. In Canada, Emancipation Day did not get such status until March 24, 2021 when the Member of parliament in the House of Commons voted unanimously to designate August 01 as Emancipation Day across Canada. Trinidad And Tobago was the first country to commemorate Emancipation Day as a national holiday since 1985. 

Emancipation Day Versus Juneteenth

Juneteenth, short for June Nineteenth, is a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States, observed annually on June 19. Similarly to Canada, it did not receive official, national status until 2021. On June 17, 2021, President Biden signed the bill into law, making Juneteenth the 11th holiday recognized by the federal government. In 1863, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which announced more than 3,000,000 slaves living in the Confederate states to be free. Despite this, it took 2 years for the news to reach Black Americans living in Texas. The news was brought to them through Union soldiers when they arrived in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865. Upon learning of their freedom, the former slaves celebrated with prayers, feasts, songs, and dances.

Black Slavery In Canada

The buying, selling, and enslavement of Black people in Canada was practiced by European traders, and colonists in New France in the early 1600s. It lasted until it was abolished throughout British North America in 1834. During that 200-year period, settlers in what would eventually become Canada were involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. 12 to 20 million Africans were enslaved in the western hemisphere after an Atlantic voyage of 6 to 10 weeks. During that voyage now known as the Middle Passage, approximately 2,000,000 Africans died from disease, malnourishment, mistreatment, and fights. Upon arrival in North America, enslaved Africans and their descendants were forced to work in fields, perform manual labour, and domestic work in homes. They were forced to change their names, abandon their faiths, reject their cultures, and stop speaking their native tongues. 

Slave owning was not only limited to the elite and politicians. Ownership was widespread in colonial Canada, from government, military officials, merchants, fur traders, hotel keepers, millers, tradesmen, bishops, priests, and others. It cruelly filled the need for cheap labour, and was also considered part of an individual’s wealth. The law enforced and maintained enslavement through legal contracts that detailed transactions of the buying, selling or hiring out of enslaved persons, as well as the terms of wills in which enslaved people were passed on to others. Slaves were not treated any better in Canada than they were in the Caribbean or the United States. They were viewed as property tools, with treatment varying considerably from owner to owner. Some owners would have allowed them to read and write, free them after the owner dies, or reward them land, and property. However, the mere fact that they were held as property sums up the overall treatment: inhumane. Most were tortured, jailed, or even sexually abused.

Indigenous Peoples Slavery In Canada

Long before Black slaves made up the majority of enslaved peoples, Indigenous peoples of the Americas were the main slaves. European explorers in the 1400s and 1500s were infamous for kidnapping Indigenous peoples and taking them back to Europe to be enslaved or exhibited. Indigenous peoples were not granted basic human rights, and were treated as property tools. They were bought and sold for the main purpose of manual and domestic labour. Most of those enslaved were young women, with the average age being 14 years old. Indigenous slavery in Canada did not end until slavery was abolished in Canada. 

Caribbean Slavery

Between 1662 and 1807 Britain shipped 3.1 million Africans across the Atlantic Ocean in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Africans were forcibly brought to British owned colonies in the Caribbean and sold as slaves to work on plantations. Those involved in the trade were driven by the large financial gain to be made, both in the Caribbean and at home in Britain. However, it was not only Britain involved in the Slave Trade. The sugar plantations of the region were also owned and operated by French, Dutch, Spanish, and Danish colonists. The death rate on the plantations was high, as a result of overwork, poor nutrition, work conditions, brutality, and disease. The work in the fields was gruelling, with long hours spent in the hot sun, supervised by overseers who were quick to whip them. Tasks ranged from clearing land, planting cane, harvesting cane, to manuring, and weeding.

Slavery was not without a fight, however. There were rebellions against slavery right up until emancipation in 1834. Most notably were the slave revolts during 1700s and 1800s including: Tacky’s rebellion in 1760s Jamaica, the Haitian Revolution in 1789, Fedon’s 1790s revolution in Grenada, the 1816 Barbados slave revolt led by Bussa, and the major 1831 slave revolt in Jamaica led by Sam Sharpe. That people that ran away from slavery who would form communities became known as the Maroons.

Indentured Labour

The abolition of slavery in 1834 led to Britain creating yet another means of exploited work: Indentured Labour. After the abolition of slavery, newly freed men and women rejected to work for the low wages offered on the sugar farms in British colonies in the Caribbean. Indentured labour was a system of bonded labour that was instituted following the abolition of slavery. Indentured labourers were recruited to work on sugar, cotton and tea plantations, and rail construction projects in British colonies in the Caribbean, Africa, and South East Asia. From 1834 to the end of World War 1, Britain had transported approximately 2 million Indian indentured workers to 19 colonies including Fiji, Mauritius, Ceylon, Trinidad, Guyana, Malaysia, Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa.

The indentured workers were recruited from India, China, and the Pacific. Workers signed a contract in their own countries to work abroad for a period of 5 years or more. They were meant to receive wages, a small amount of land and in some cases, promise of a return passage once their contract was over. In reality, this rarely happened. The conditions were harsh and their wages mercilessly low. The system of indentured labour was officially abolished by the British government in 1917. Over the following century, the descendants of those who remained became significant parts of the population in a number of countries such as Guyana, Surinam, Trinidad, Jamaica, Malaysia and South Africa, and, to a lesser extent, in the East African countries of Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. A lot of East and South Asian people also migrated to the United Kingdom in the 1950s and thereafter.

Legacy

Though countries such as Canada, United States, Britain, Spain, Holland, and France, have long abolished enslavement systems, freedom was not truly granted upon abolishment of such systems. Formerly enslaved peoples continued to face challenges of discrimination in housing, employment, education, health, transportation, and several other areas. Even though a lot has improved between then and now, the effects from hundreds of years of colonialism still effects these society in a number of ways, mainly through superiority complex. There is still work to be done.