This paper focuses on a critical reading of a monument on Papaschase Cree land (University of Alberta campus) entitled 'The Visionaries', which is of two white settler men - Rutherford, who was Alberta's first premier and who introduced legislation for the campus, and Tory, who was the university's first president. How does this monument work within memory making to strategically erase and forget? In this case, forget the Papaschase Cree. And how can this erasure be made visible? After situating this research in a brief history of the Papaschase Cree and Rutherford and Tory, I will analyze the differing ways that Indigenous geographies and settler colonial geographies interpret place and relationships with the land. A critical pedagogy of place, inspired by Jay Johnson, will be used to re-read the monument and look at questions of representation, memory, settler implication and responsibility. My hope is that this analysis can encourage people to examine relationships and geographies of power, place and privilege that envelope monuments and institutions, such as universities, and ask: Who is being remembered and forgotten, and why? Keywords: Indigenous-settler relations, settler implication, memory, decolonization
SummaryData on patterns and trends in sterilisation in Britain among women, men and couples are presented using life table approaches with data from a national survey, the General Household Survey. Among couples under age 50, sterilisation is the main method of contraception used, with slightly more women than men being sterilised, although this is reversed if only contraceptive sterilisation is considered. Trends in contraception have remained relatively constant in recent decades. Patterns of sterilisation differ following births of different orders. For example, the resort to sterilisation is much quicker after a third birth than after a second. The proportions of men and women who have been sterilised and then formed a subsequent partnership are very small, so the effect of sterilisation in preventing births in such unions is negligible.
Household projections produced by official agencies usually use the headship rate method, based on the proportion of people designated as 'head of household' (or 'reference person') in various sex, age, and family categories. Reasons are discussed why this method has been criticised in recent years: the headship method does not incorporate any behavioural assumptions or dynamic aspects; only the characteristics of the head are included explicitly; and the concept of 'head' is thought to be incompatible with more egalitarian household roles. The advantages of dynamic models are discussed, and a number of alternative dynamic models of household formation and dissolution are presented. The data source used is the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1% longitudinal study, which contains linked information on 500000 people in the 1971 and 1981 England and Wales Censuses of Population.