What to do with Native peoples?

I fail to see how a bank is any different from a national state. Also while the swiss banks aren't budging (atleast not yet) there are various other institutions that have done so. I think the state of California for example a short while ago gave back art that was orginially owned by holocaust victims. In my opinion it just seems to be a question of who has the biggest and most powerful lobby.

Not that I would in any way expect the natives to be given back their former lands, or nor do I think they necessary should be given back, since it might invlove forcefully moving some of the new population from their current homes. Two wrongs won't make a right. It would be just nice to acknowledge them every now and then and take their concerns seriously, instead of constantly ignoring them. The same is basically done with the Saami in Finland, they are too few for the government to care too much about them. Sure they are provided with schools in their own language and they basically have a constitutional monopoly over herding raindeer, but when they still don't own any land in north, nor do they have any guarantees for its use, matters become somewhat complicated.

 

Here's a link to an article that discusses Canada's Native population. There are still major problems, the big ones (IMHO) encapsulated below in two quotes:

The excessive emphasis is mine -- kudos to the O'Chiese for not following this pattern.

Emphasis also mine.

I really would like to see all Canadians get treated equally and fairly, and to extend that thought, all humans treated equally and fairly.

 

This is what I have a problem with. One, it suggests they came into the study with a conclusion to prove. Two, it outright admits to disrespect to the individuals questioned, which will never get you good results on any study. Now problems may really exist, but you won't be able to prove it unless you approach the situation properly.

 

...or three, the questions were fine, but perceived as "not nice" because they were peering into matters that, if made public, would make the leadership look bad. When on the receiving end of it, most people don't consider good reporting "nice".

 

But saying that they could have asked nicer questions usually means they could have gotten similar results with those nicer questions. I may be reading too much into this, but it seems awefully oddly worded if so.

 

When it comes to "nicer" questions, when there is solid evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasence, there is no way to ask questions "nicely" -- you just say "how do you account for the $500,000 that is missing?" Of course the crooked leader is going to get all huffy and cry "foul!" but there's nothing wrong with the question in and of itself.

The bottom line is that some of these corrupt Band leaders, when evidence of the fact that they are cheating their own people comes to light, immediately try to deflect the issue by playing the "racial persecution / victim" card, which is utter crap.

 

Ah, but that's not what was said. In this case, the interviewers themselves said they could have asked nicer questions. That tells me they had the option of wording questions accusationally or openly, and chose to word them accusationally, which never really works.

 

Again, NOG, when there is obviously and clearly a serious problem, there is just no way they can (or should) soft pedal their questions. And that applies to everyone regardless of race.

 

NOG, you are making entirely too much out of the word "nice" and reading all kinds of things that weren't said into it. That their questions weren't "nice" doesn't, as you imply, mean that they were specifically worded to be insulting. The reason they weren't "nice" could have been content-oriented. In other words, their questions weren't "nice" because they weren't asking softball questions. We've seen our own politicians say as much about fairly worded yet probing questions they've been asked, so this is also a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the word "nice" in this context.

 

If the accusation of un-'nice' words had come from the interviewed, I'd believe that easily. Since it came from the interviewers, and thus from the perspective of the interviewers, and is immediately followed by their conclusion of guilt, even with limited evidence, I take it in it's worst possible context. May I be reading things that aren't there? Yes. But I may also be accurately reading it.

 

I doubt it. You're stretching the meaning of the word "nice" well past its limit. What's more, when you put :

in the context of:

it becomes quite clear that "nice" in this context was not determined by the perspective of the researchers, but the tribal leadership. Looking at how the researchers worded it, it is quite clear that the researchers weren't talking about asking nicer questions, but 'nicer' questions. There is a difference between those two statements, and that difference is substantial.

EDIT: That said, you can see the questions they asked for yourself. Scroll down to the bottom of the link to see the survey questions. If you'd prefer, I went ahead and spoilered the questions (but not the multiple choice answer options, unless they were essential to understanding the question) if you'd rather see it that way.

Spoiler

POLICY SERIES
1. In the last Band Council election, were rightful voters able to trust that their votes,
and only their votes, would be counted?
2. If you were a member of the Chief’s family, would this
□ Guarantee a job □ Not help
□ Help get a job □ Make it more difficult
□ Be a small help getting a job □ Don’t know/not sure
3. Are Council minutes and decisions easily available to anyone on the reserve?
4. Does the Council force people off the Reserve whom it doesn’t like
(with a Band Council Resolution - BCR)?
5. Does the band allow access for its members to its business plan
and financial statements?
6. Do members of your band council or their family members run the Reserve’s
independent service outlets (for example retail outlets or restaurants)?

I. ELECTIONS
1. Are elections held every two years or is the frequency established by custom?
2. Are you satisfied with the quality of the candidates?
3. Have favours or payments ever been exchanged for votes?
4. Have election results ever been disputed?
5. Is the person who resolves such disputes independent from band officials?
6. Does your band decide leadership by hereditary custom?

II. ADMINISTRATION
1. Do the Chief and band council make all decisions?
2. Are other band members consulted?
3. Do band officials ever benefit personally from their own decisions?
4. Does the council tend to hire family?
5. Does band employment depend on family or political relations with existing leaders?
6. Are open positions of employment with the band posted on bulletin boards?
7. Has your band ever had a third-party administrator appointed under the Indian Act?
8. Do you think the band is overstaffed?
9. Does the band use too many outsiders to do its work?
10. Have you ever seen a copy of the band’s financial statements?
11. Overall, how would you rate your band’s administration?

III. HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Does the Chief or council use band council resolutions (BCRs) to force residents to
leave the reservation?
2. Have residents been removed with BCRs within the last five years?
3. Do band members removed from the reservation have the right to an appeal?
4. Does an independent agency hear such appeals?
5. Who appoints that agency?
6. Do band members have security in the possession of their homes and enterprises?
7. Have band members ever been evicted from their homes?
8. Does the band provide its own police services?
9. Is the band policed by an outside force, such as the R.C.M.P.?
10. How would you rate the personal security of band residents?
11. How would you describe the percentage of band members incarcerated in jails or
prisons over the last five years?

IV. TRANSPARENCY
1. Do you think the band council meets often enough?
2. Are band council meetings open to band members on a regular basis?
3. Are band council minutes and decisions made available to band members?
4. Is there in place a formal process for consulting residents?
5. Does the band publish a newsletter, information bulletins or other communications
to inform members of band activities?
6. Does the band allow access for its members to its business plan and financial
statements?
7. How would you rate the financial information given band members?
8. Are band members provided with information on the performance of band enterprises?
9. To your knowledge, has the band council ever defaulted on its financial responsibilities?
10. Do you think your band carries too much debt?
11. Do you think your band’s management of records is adequate?
12. Is there a formal process in place for handling complaints from band members?

V. SERVICES
1. Do you think your band’s schools are performing well?
2. Is your school drop-out rate good or bad?
3. Do you think your band provides enough support for those who want to go on
to college or university?
4. Overall, how would you rate your band’s performance with regard to education?
5. Do people in your community wait too long for medical attention?
6. Overall, how would you rate your band’s performance with regard to health services?
7. How would you rate the access of your band members to welfare?
8. Does your band suffer from a shortage of housing?
9. Do you think housing is assigned fairly?
10. How would you rate the quality of water provided to your community?
11. Overall, are you happy with the services your band’s leaders are providing?

VI. THE ECONOMY
1. Do the members of your band council also run the band’s businesses?
2. Do you think the hiring of people to work for band businesses is fair?
3. Does the band provide equal and fair access to credit or loan capital?
4. How would you rate the availability of jobs in your community?
5. How would you rate the number of band members who have left the reservation?
6. Is or has the band ever been under third party management?
7. Do you think your community’s economy is growing?
8. Do you think that your children would do better for themselves if they stayed
in your community or left?

 

Ok, looking at that, they really could have asked a few nicer questions, but most were just fine.

 

Maybe the questions could have been "nicer", but the only way to find out from a survey of band members if their representatives benefit personally from their own decisions, if their councils tend to hire family, or if band employment depends on family or political relations with existing leaders -- is to ask, and I really can't think of any "nicer" way to word such questions than they way they worded them. None of the questions were worded insultingly, and if the leadership was innocent of any or all of the vices in question, the survey results almost certainly would have indicated that.