Ummm.. I really respect you Vison, but I will say, I disagree and I cultural preservation is something important and I think can be preserved while still living in the modern world. I think successful reserves can prove that. Not all reserves are in this state so obviously thee are success stories. According to the CBC 1/6 of the reserves are in a bad state. I want to see how the 5/6th are doing.
I know many people may not agree with me, but sometimes going the other route, can lead to an identity crisis and a lot of mental anguish. Now this may not affect all people, but I truly think it affects some. (Heck, even my friends of Eastern European descent work very hard to hold onto their language and culture.)
The crisis of the northern ontario community Attawapiskat
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Well the Algonquin people on the news thing I saw last night, the biggest concern everyone had regardless of age was maintaining language. One person explained he dropped out of high school, since he knew French better then Algonquin. (They travel at least an hour to go to the Quebec run schools) Right now they are working to get the local school to teach grade 3 where they can learn in the Algonquin language. They have daycare up to grade 2 locally.
I don't know how they can get what they have now, education wise in the cities.
I will say, I think the biggest issue is the autonomy to build their own economy. After that everything seems to become easier. Any group of people anywhere, if they don't have an economy they are screwed. That goes for cities too. I think that is why in part I feel much of the Indian Act needs to be re-examined, since it seems at least some of it exists to keep the residents out of the economy. The developing Ring of Fire situation is quite telling.
(I am not to sure I want to go down this road of discussing culture and holding on to it. Although it seems to be a very big issue of FN people and other people, it sort of seems after discussing it online in my experience, many people don't feel cultural preservation is an issue. I don't want this thread to be derailed into talking about whether cultures are worth preserving. I don't think minds are going to changed on that subject. If people do want to discuss it, I would be prepared to participate in another thread.)
EDIT: I will point out these are northern communities, and the way of life there is different altogether. Hearing just from white people who live in northern communities, they say many of the suggested solutions are city solutions for northern problems. Knowing that, I think is quite important. I have known white people who have vacationed up north and doing things that could be considered subsistence level living, hunting, fishing, cooking it yourself, building a cabin are some of the reasons they love to vacation or retire up there. So I don't think particular ways of life are totally incompatible with each other. I have more to say on this, but I think, I will stop, since I just horribly contradicted myself.
I don't know how they can get what they have now, education wise in the cities.
I will say, I think the biggest issue is the autonomy to build their own economy. After that everything seems to become easier. Any group of people anywhere, if they don't have an economy they are screwed. That goes for cities too. I think that is why in part I feel much of the Indian Act needs to be re-examined, since it seems at least some of it exists to keep the residents out of the economy. The developing Ring of Fire situation is quite telling.
(I am not to sure I want to go down this road of discussing culture and holding on to it. Although it seems to be a very big issue of FN people and other people, it sort of seems after discussing it online in my experience, many people don't feel cultural preservation is an issue. I don't want this thread to be derailed into talking about whether cultures are worth preserving. I don't think minds are going to changed on that subject. If people do want to discuss it, I would be prepared to participate in another thread.)
EDIT: I will point out these are northern communities, and the way of life there is different altogether. Hearing just from white people who live in northern communities, they say many of the suggested solutions are city solutions for northern problems. Knowing that, I think is quite important. I have known white people who have vacationed up north and doing things that could be considered subsistence level living, hunting, fishing, cooking it yourself, building a cabin are some of the reasons they love to vacation or retire up there. So I don't think particular ways of life are totally incompatible with each other. I have more to say on this, but I think, I will stop, since I just horribly contradicted myself.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
I think preserving culture is a fine idea, so long as we don't mean the same thing as preserving a specimen in a jar. I think the idea of a society trying to maintain a stone- or bronze- age level of subsistence living is doomed, period, always, no exceptions. That ship has sailed, crossed the ocean, spread smallpox, and been put in a museum. "Roughing it" as a hobby--and if you can stop it when you want to, that's what it is--is not the same thing.
On the other hand, keeping a cultural separateness intact, via language and traditions not wholly rooted in economic survival? All for it. And yes, it requires a modern economic connection of some sort. The nature of that connection is the devil in the details.
On the other hand, keeping a cultural separateness intact, via language and traditions not wholly rooted in economic survival? All for it. And yes, it requires a modern economic connection of some sort. The nature of that connection is the devil in the details.
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
From what I am understanding from you, I do not agree with the specimen in a jar model either. I don't think anyone does, even on the FN blog I linked to, the blogger explained many FN people embraced gun use and things like snowmobiles etc, when they first came out. Many want modernization, but then big business profit matters more. I personally don't think guns are great for cities, but in more rural or remote areas, I think shot guns are important. Again I think some of it is a rural/ city divide rather then solely subsistence living.
For the Algonquin documentary, for the school, many in the community just want to be able to teach in their own language, with lights and running water. I do not think that is too much to ask. Heck we have a whole province where they do just that.
For the Algonquin documentary, for the school, many in the community just want to be able to teach in their own language, with lights and running water. I do not think that is too much to ask. Heck we have a whole province where they do just that.
You are making many good points yourself Wilma and I am learning a lot from this discussion.
My mother's grandmother (so going back to the previous turn of the century) was an Aboriginal belonging to a band called the Kikapoo. They were a splinter of the Shawnee and their ancestral lands encompass the shores of the western half of Lake Erie (that is land on both sides of the US Canada border, including Point Pelee) down into the Ohio River valley.
They are a small band who, like the Algonquin, did not agree to live on reserve lands. They did retain Aboriginal rights, such as they are, but my great grandmother abandoned those rights when she married a French Canadian. This is a rule common to the reserve system though I am not sure if it is a rule imposed on them or if it is derived from their own customs.
Anyway to answer your question about why the reserves are so small you have to go all the way back to the days which began European settlement of NA.
Though Aboriginals were always territorial there was no formal/legal system of land ownership. When Europeans came and local governing structures were established, private real estate boundaries were drawn up and mainly given to Europeans in order that they would settle and develop the land. Everything that wasn't private technically belonged to the empire or Crown.
Aboriginals found that fences and crops interfered with their usual way of life. The settlers who owned the crops and fences viewed natives tracking game (or wanting to set up camp on their private property) as with hostile intent.
With a view to sorting this issue out without conflict some Aboriginal leaders agreed to adopt the European system of land ownership. In Canada (not technically established yet at the time) the Proclamation 1763 laid out Native rights (in what was understood as a deed) to vast tracts of what had always been their land. They missed the part where the Crown also considered "reserved lands" as belonging to them. Often when we hear of Aboriginal land claims these days they go back to the 1763 document.
Aboriginals took the British system on the faith that, like settlers' claims, their claims would be upheld in a court of law. However over the next few hundred years settlers continued to encroach on Native lands with paper deeds of their own. Through a cycle of conflict and resolution -- the resolve always being for the Aboriginals to accept paper deeds for smaller and smaller chunks of land -- they were literally pushed onto the spaces we see now.
Why they kept believing the Europeans would honour their own system of laws, rather than manipulating said laws to the ends we see now, is anyone's guess. (I suppose that is the price you sometimes pay for a clear conscience and taking people at their word.) Of course Native population attrition due to disease, military service to the Empire, and assimilation meant, in a real sense, that purely for the purpose of having somewhere to live, there was more than enough space in the pitifully small parcels of land called reserves.
In the past century reserve land continued to be viewed as "Crown land" and was appropriated or used as need arose. For instance Ipperwash, which since has been taken back successfully by the Kettle Point Band, was expropriated to become a training base during WW II, up until it was decommissioned in the early 1990s.
But the government didn't just want to give the land back when they were done with it. Besides, it was contaminated and dangerous, with un-detonated ordinance on the rocket/tank range and the poisonous byproducts of several decades of military use. The fact that it also had some beautiful frontage on Lake Huron with great private potential seemed not to figure into the government's concerns. (Incidentally this was the site where the native protester was shot that I referred to in the occupy thread.)
Even where land was not expropriated outright (temporarily or otherwise), reserve land was used in ways that no land owner would agree to... not, at least, without a heaping pile of compensation/remuneration. Reserve lands are typically comprised of land that has little or no agricultural value. (They mainly hunt don't they?) Because of this there are tracts that, to an outsider, would appear not to be in use. On a reserve near Melbourne Ontario there are fields that cannot be entered, even for hunting, because they were used as sites for test bombing runs during WWII and were never cleaned up.
Stories of such things are common though, especially in the North where lands are borrowed by industry for a pittance. If and when they leave the land remains an appalling, toxic mess of garbage, cesspools and broken machinery, with roads to nowhere and power lines connected to nothing. For a snapshot, think of the state South Vietnam was left in when the US went back home.
(FWIW, though neither do I want to talk about it here, I agree that separate school boards are a colossal waste. They do figure into the story though of how some Aboriginals communities were decimated or at the very least continue to suffer even now.)
ETA: I kind of agree with Ax's sentiment in so far as it is difficult retaining the heart of collectivism on an island in an ocean of capitalism. (Cuba anyone?) Somehow the Kibbutz system seems to thrive but its success appears to be based on economic activities that can be carried on in a fixed state. Also that system is not something forced on the collectives.
My mother's grandmother (so going back to the previous turn of the century) was an Aboriginal belonging to a band called the Kikapoo. They were a splinter of the Shawnee and their ancestral lands encompass the shores of the western half of Lake Erie (that is land on both sides of the US Canada border, including Point Pelee) down into the Ohio River valley.
They are a small band who, like the Algonquin, did not agree to live on reserve lands. They did retain Aboriginal rights, such as they are, but my great grandmother abandoned those rights when she married a French Canadian. This is a rule common to the reserve system though I am not sure if it is a rule imposed on them or if it is derived from their own customs.
Anyway to answer your question about why the reserves are so small you have to go all the way back to the days which began European settlement of NA.
Though Aboriginals were always territorial there was no formal/legal system of land ownership. When Europeans came and local governing structures were established, private real estate boundaries were drawn up and mainly given to Europeans in order that they would settle and develop the land. Everything that wasn't private technically belonged to the empire or Crown.
Aboriginals found that fences and crops interfered with their usual way of life. The settlers who owned the crops and fences viewed natives tracking game (or wanting to set up camp on their private property) as with hostile intent.
With a view to sorting this issue out without conflict some Aboriginal leaders agreed to adopt the European system of land ownership. In Canada (not technically established yet at the time) the Proclamation 1763 laid out Native rights (in what was understood as a deed) to vast tracts of what had always been their land. They missed the part where the Crown also considered "reserved lands" as belonging to them. Often when we hear of Aboriginal land claims these days they go back to the 1763 document.
Aboriginals took the British system on the faith that, like settlers' claims, their claims would be upheld in a court of law. However over the next few hundred years settlers continued to encroach on Native lands with paper deeds of their own. Through a cycle of conflict and resolution -- the resolve always being for the Aboriginals to accept paper deeds for smaller and smaller chunks of land -- they were literally pushed onto the spaces we see now.
Why they kept believing the Europeans would honour their own system of laws, rather than manipulating said laws to the ends we see now, is anyone's guess. (I suppose that is the price you sometimes pay for a clear conscience and taking people at their word.) Of course Native population attrition due to disease, military service to the Empire, and assimilation meant, in a real sense, that purely for the purpose of having somewhere to live, there was more than enough space in the pitifully small parcels of land called reserves.
In the past century reserve land continued to be viewed as "Crown land" and was appropriated or used as need arose. For instance Ipperwash, which since has been taken back successfully by the Kettle Point Band, was expropriated to become a training base during WW II, up until it was decommissioned in the early 1990s.
But the government didn't just want to give the land back when they were done with it. Besides, it was contaminated and dangerous, with un-detonated ordinance on the rocket/tank range and the poisonous byproducts of several decades of military use. The fact that it also had some beautiful frontage on Lake Huron with great private potential seemed not to figure into the government's concerns. (Incidentally this was the site where the native protester was shot that I referred to in the occupy thread.)
Even where land was not expropriated outright (temporarily or otherwise), reserve land was used in ways that no land owner would agree to... not, at least, without a heaping pile of compensation/remuneration. Reserve lands are typically comprised of land that has little or no agricultural value. (They mainly hunt don't they?) Because of this there are tracts that, to an outsider, would appear not to be in use. On a reserve near Melbourne Ontario there are fields that cannot be entered, even for hunting, because they were used as sites for test bombing runs during WWII and were never cleaned up.
Stories of such things are common though, especially in the North where lands are borrowed by industry for a pittance. If and when they leave the land remains an appalling, toxic mess of garbage, cesspools and broken machinery, with roads to nowhere and power lines connected to nothing. For a snapshot, think of the state South Vietnam was left in when the US went back home.
(FWIW, though neither do I want to talk about it here, I agree that separate school boards are a colossal waste. They do figure into the story though of how some Aboriginals communities were decimated or at the very least continue to suffer even now.)
ETA: I kind of agree with Ax's sentiment in so far as it is difficult retaining the heart of collectivism on an island in an ocean of capitalism. (Cuba anyone?) Somehow the Kibbutz system seems to thrive but its success appears to be based on economic activities that can be carried on in a fixed state. Also that system is not something forced on the collectives.
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Great post. I do know that when the government developed the Status system, initally, it was very easy for a person to lose their status, through marriage and there have been many changes made now a person or a group of people can get their status back.SirDennis wrote:
They did retain Aboriginal rights, such as they are, but my great grandmother abandoned those rights when she married a French Canadian. This is a rule common to the reserve system though I am not sure if it is a rule imposed on them or if it is derived from their own customs.
Much of what you have explained seems to be well, a lot of racism.
With the apology for the residential schools, I had hoped there would be a re-examination of the governments "relationship" with the FN Nations people.ETA: Very interesting comment on the Kibbutz system.
Yes. I agree with you, axordil.axordil wrote:I think preserving culture is a fine idea, so long as we don't mean the same thing as preserving a specimen in a jar. I think the idea of a society trying to maintain a stone- or bronze- age level of subsistence living is doomed, period, always, no exceptions. That ship has sailed, crossed the ocean, spread smallpox, and been put in a museum. "Roughing it" as a hobby--and if you can stop it when you want to, that's what it is--is not the same thing.
On the other hand, keeping a cultural separateness intact, via language and traditions not wholly rooted in economic survival? All for it. And yes, it requires a modern economic connection of some sort. The nature of that connection is the devil in the details.
As for the reserves that aren't in bad shape, it depends, I suppose, on what you regard as "bad shape". Offhand, I can't think of one that an ordinary urban/suburban Canadian would willingly live on.
We live in a time when we aren't allowed to say, "you lost, get over it." But that's the reality - European-based "culture" is the norm in Canada and the US and it is not going to change - or, if it does, it won't change in favour of FN culture.
With the exception of the odd diamond mine or oil field, there is nothing for people to "work at" in the North. I know people up there who earn a decent living trapping, but it is a hard life and not everyone can do it, assuming there was enough territory and enough fur-bearers to make it possible.
There is no industry. There are no roads. There is no power grid. Causing those things to exist means an entirely artificial construct - they would not be the result of development.
My gut feeling is that, awful though it is, FN culture and languages will go the way of the Passenger Pigeon. This does not make me happy, nor do I think it's "right", but then - how do you undo 200 years of history?
In the meantime, FN people who leave the reserve tend to wind up on the streets of Winnipeg and Vancouver. They have no future on the reserve, by and large, and certainly their futures are limited in the cities.
Things should change. But again, I don't know how.
Dig deeper.
Well a good place to start would be by improving the economic realities on reserves. I see no reason why reserves cannot operate similar to Kibbutz, Amish settlements, or any number of villages around the world that are supported by a single industry. Except that their way of life is fundamentally at odds with private ownership and for-profit endeavors. Again there is the worry about encroachment from outside influences.
But in this world, given the dominant economic model, cultural hegemony attendant to trying to co-exist with said economic model cannot be avoided. The only way to overcome such influences is to temper them with a strong sense of culture. And there's the rub (catch 22?): it was their culture that was systematically bred-out of them or destroyed head on over the years.
Another thing that might have helped is if money that was supposedly being spent on reserves actually went for something that improved their quality of life. For instance, for years such things as travel expenses for visiting government officials were counted as "spending on reserves." I'm sure any investigations of how bad things are at Atiwapiskat are coming out of FN budgets.
It is no coincidence that Aboriginals are in the economic straits that they are. Had they had the use of their ancestral lands for economic gain as settlers have had for the past 150 years things might have been quite different. Of course on the same land and water presently, even those without having had the expense of having to buy the land (for instance those who have inherited it down through generations) are floundering. When the economy is bad for the majority, how much worse is it for the already marginalized? (Wait I think I said that already.)
But in this world, given the dominant economic model, cultural hegemony attendant to trying to co-exist with said economic model cannot be avoided. The only way to overcome such influences is to temper them with a strong sense of culture. And there's the rub (catch 22?): it was their culture that was systematically bred-out of them or destroyed head on over the years.
Another thing that might have helped is if money that was supposedly being spent on reserves actually went for something that improved their quality of life. For instance, for years such things as travel expenses for visiting government officials were counted as "spending on reserves." I'm sure any investigations of how bad things are at Atiwapiskat are coming out of FN budgets.
It is no coincidence that Aboriginals are in the economic straits that they are. Had they had the use of their ancestral lands for economic gain as settlers have had for the past 150 years things might have been quite different. Of course on the same land and water presently, even those without having had the expense of having to buy the land (for instance those who have inherited it down through generations) are floundering. When the economy is bad for the majority, how much worse is it for the already marginalized? (Wait I think I said that already.)
A FN woman lost her status when she married "out" but a FN man generally didn't.
These issues are not yet resolved. Some FN groups are matrilineal and some aren't. It makes a great deal of difference in a matrilineal society where your mother is, and what her status is.
The "Indian Act" is a poisonous hodgepodge. Part of it was well-intentioned and part of it was certainly not.
And, yes, any money spent in the Department is "counted" as having been spent "on" the First Nations. That still does not account for very large sums that did go to the actual FN reserve and then cannot be accounted for.
These issues are not yet resolved. Some FN groups are matrilineal and some aren't. It makes a great deal of difference in a matrilineal society where your mother is, and what her status is.
The "Indian Act" is a poisonous hodgepodge. Part of it was well-intentioned and part of it was certainly not.
And, yes, any money spent in the Department is "counted" as having been spent "on" the First Nations. That still does not account for very large sums that did go to the actual FN reserve and then cannot be accounted for.
Dig deeper.
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
I was watching the CBC yesterday and they do a very small piece on a successful reserve and how non-FN people are moving into it, due to the jobs. 20 years ago that reserve was in pretty bad shape. Basically the main issue was a revenue source outside of just the federal government.
This is why I think the diamond mine is key in the Attawapiskat case. There needs to be a re-evaluation of FN peoples relationship with the federal government and the federal government needs to tell industry that they have to deal with FN peoples on an equal footing and back it up. I wish more of these sort of deals (like the the one with DeBeers) was discussed more on the news while they are still in negotiation. (Once they are signed at least, they become confidential.) I still have not heard of the Ring of Fire issue on television. I have read about it and heard about it on the radio. (I am going to check TVO since it seems they always make an effort to try and cover issues of the north.)
Vison, losing status when a woman married out, in matrilineal cultures just seems stupid, but then, I am sure the Indian Act was full of ethnocentrism. I truly wish some anthropological specialists could examine the Indian Act and recommend changes.
SirDennis you make some very good points about alternative communities, that still manage to survive since the governments actually support them, on top of that they have alternate revenue sources. (I sort of wonder if Algonquin people make any money off the ecotourism opportunities that are possible there. I know many people really, really love Algonquin park. Don't know the books though.)
I do think there needs to be forensic audits on some of the spending practices, but not just by the band chiefs. If a person sends sub par building materials, they need to be exposed and dealt with. I do think though with outside contractors and workers, there is a mindset that it's government money, so if they commit a little fraud no one will get hurt. Also if it's money for poor FN people it increases the likelihood they can get away with it. I mean federal and provincial government insiders do it all the time.
(Once I was in a study for a friend of my father's that was funded by the provincial government. When the assistants took us out for lunch, they said since the study was funded by the government, we could order anything we wanted on the menu! It was a moderately priced restaurant we were eating at.)
This is why I think the diamond mine is key in the Attawapiskat case. There needs to be a re-evaluation of FN peoples relationship with the federal government and the federal government needs to tell industry that they have to deal with FN peoples on an equal footing and back it up. I wish more of these sort of deals (like the the one with DeBeers) was discussed more on the news while they are still in negotiation. (Once they are signed at least, they become confidential.) I still have not heard of the Ring of Fire issue on television. I have read about it and heard about it on the radio. (I am going to check TVO since it seems they always make an effort to try and cover issues of the north.)
Vison, losing status when a woman married out, in matrilineal cultures just seems stupid, but then, I am sure the Indian Act was full of ethnocentrism. I truly wish some anthropological specialists could examine the Indian Act and recommend changes.
SirDennis you make some very good points about alternative communities, that still manage to survive since the governments actually support them, on top of that they have alternate revenue sources. (I sort of wonder if Algonquin people make any money off the ecotourism opportunities that are possible there. I know many people really, really love Algonquin park. Don't know the books though.)
I do think there needs to be forensic audits on some of the spending practices, but not just by the band chiefs. If a person sends sub par building materials, they need to be exposed and dealt with. I do think though with outside contractors and workers, there is a mindset that it's government money, so if they commit a little fraud no one will get hurt. Also if it's money for poor FN people it increases the likelihood they can get away with it. I mean federal and provincial government insiders do it all the time.
(Once I was in a study for a friend of my father's that was funded by the provincial government. When the assistants took us out for lunch, they said since the study was funded by the government, we could order anything we wanted on the menu! It was a moderately priced restaurant we were eating at.)
Wilma, as you say, there is corruption at every turn.
The other thing we could think of: in about 1500, say, the First Nations of North America lived only their traditional lifestyles.
They lived in igloos, tents, longhouses, huts: not frame houses with shingled roofs. They did not have electricity or running water. They did not have schools. They did not have hospitals. They did not have gumboots or down-filled parkas. They did not have snowmobiles or cars.
They ate only what they could kill, catch, or find. There was no mall at the end of the rainbow.
I doubt that many of them (or us) would like to return to that. What they want, and what I hope they can find, is to meld some aspects of their traditional lifestyles with the modern lifestyle every other Canadian enjoys.
But you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The FNs here on the West coast were wealthy and powerful - the climate and landscape here made living relatively easy. But they don't have the whole of BC any more. The Fraser River is not their river, and the mountains are not their mountains. They don't have enough territory to go back to the old ways.
I really hope that some original thinking goes on and that some original ideas are discussed by the people who need to do it.
The other thing we could think of: in about 1500, say, the First Nations of North America lived only their traditional lifestyles.
They lived in igloos, tents, longhouses, huts: not frame houses with shingled roofs. They did not have electricity or running water. They did not have schools. They did not have hospitals. They did not have gumboots or down-filled parkas. They did not have snowmobiles or cars.
They ate only what they could kill, catch, or find. There was no mall at the end of the rainbow.
I doubt that many of them (or us) would like to return to that. What they want, and what I hope they can find, is to meld some aspects of their traditional lifestyles with the modern lifestyle every other Canadian enjoys.
But you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The FNs here on the West coast were wealthy and powerful - the climate and landscape here made living relatively easy. But they don't have the whole of BC any more. The Fraser River is not their river, and the mountains are not their mountains. They don't have enough territory to go back to the old ways.
I really hope that some original thinking goes on and that some original ideas are discussed by the people who need to do it.
Dig deeper.
I suppose this is where "the rest of us" need to say something to the effect: we oppose racially motivated and exploitative mining practices when we hear about it happening in Africa, we sure as heck won't put up with it in Canada.This is why I think the diamond mine is key in the Attawapiskat case. There needs to be a re-evaluation of FN peoples relationship with the federal government and the federal government needs to tell industry that they have to deal with FN peoples on an equal footing and back it up. I wish more of these sort of deals (like the the one with DeBeers) was discussed more on the news while they are still in negotiation. (Once they are signed at least, they become confidential.) I still have not heard of the Ring of Fire issue on television. I have read about it and heard about it on the radio. (I am going to check TVO since it seems they always make an effort to try and cover issues of the north.)
Trouble is African nations (ex Rhodesia now Zimbabwe, and in DRC formerly Zaire) are often mining havens, for Canadian companies in particular. They go there not so much for the resources but because their exploitative practices are tolerated if not sometimes supported by local authorities. Political instability and economic hardship on the ground seem to be the preferred environment for mining operations. (Some believe the companies themselves instigate such conditions.) Not sharing, or sharing very little, of the wealth extracted right from under the people who live there is SOP. Is there a connection between the plight of certain former British (et al) colonies and the state of some reserves in Canada?
Here in Canada it would be easy enough to believe the mining company's choice of where to set up shop is driven solely by the availability of a particular resource. Simple really. Why is it then that the same kind of situation for locals exists where ever mines pop up around the globe? And what of the ethical responsibility to share the wealth they extract with the people who live there?
I too wonder where the money went. We know they did not wallpaper their homes with it, use stacks of bills to prop up sagging foundations, use it to stuff cracks in the wall or pave their roads with it. So unless they are burning it for fuel or using it for tissue and flushing it, it is a safe bet that the money didn't actually get there. Or was it diverted to something that did not benefit them directly in a meaningful, observable way? The high cost of everything there cannot account for all the errant funds. There have been no reports of certain well-connected band members living in castles in the area.
Would a northern mining company qualify for a portion of FN funds as a subsidy if they claimed their operation would bring benefit to the locals? How much was spent on infrastructure specifically to service the mine? (This is the point behind the story of Flint Michigan: gabillions of tax dollars were spent on infrastructure in order to support the existence of auto plants there -- roads to and from work and for shipping and receiving, sewer, water, electrical grid to service the plants directly but also to make it possible to build up the surrounding community for workers to live in. But when the plants pulled out, apart from the mess, urban sprawl and decay, there was all that infrastructure that served no purpose. In the long run, all those public funds were spent for nothing.)
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
SirDennis you ask some extremely good questions. Canadian mining companies record around the world is abysmal. I want to do some research what is called an IBA, which is the short name for the agreement DeBeers made with Attawapiskat. (It's mentioned in one of the videos I previously linked to.)
I do think all of the money can be accounted for because with 17 mill a year and the high cost of just about everything it could account for a lot of it. Also like I said some of it could be eaten up by outside workers, along with some mismanagement. Their most recent books are readily available to look at by at least reporters and the blogger I mentioned linked to one of Attawapiskat's recent accounting list thingies
But the gross mismanagement/corruption that seems to have been implied by the Prime Minister, I do not think is true because frankly that would be the easiest answer on many levels and absolve the federal government of any responsibility. Whenever there is a pat and easy accusation like that I get very suspicious.
I will note though, that in the past there have been some changes proposed for the Indian act, which would take the payment money out of the chiefs hands and a lot of them did not like that. I do not know about the details about these proposals or about the pros or cons.
The band chief of Attawapiskat sent the third party manager home when he arrived and is basically making a stand, saying don't blame the victim. I have some thoughts on this, but I want to know what everyone else thinks.
I do think all of the money can be accounted for because with 17 mill a year and the high cost of just about everything it could account for a lot of it. Also like I said some of it could be eaten up by outside workers, along with some mismanagement. Their most recent books are readily available to look at by at least reporters and the blogger I mentioned linked to one of Attawapiskat's recent accounting list thingies
But the gross mismanagement/corruption that seems to have been implied by the Prime Minister, I do not think is true because frankly that would be the easiest answer on many levels and absolve the federal government of any responsibility. Whenever there is a pat and easy accusation like that I get very suspicious.
I will note though, that in the past there have been some changes proposed for the Indian act, which would take the payment money out of the chiefs hands and a lot of them did not like that. I do not know about the details about these proposals or about the pros or cons.
The band chief of Attawapiskat sent the third party manager home when he arrived and is basically making a stand, saying don't blame the victim. I have some thoughts on this, but I want to know what everyone else thinks.
I don't think that crooked chiefs or other FN people mismanaged or stole ALL that money. An awful lot of it never gets to the reserve in the first place.
Everyone's fingers are in the pie, and as with many government programs or projects, everyone feels quite willing to help themselves.
I've been involved in applying for grants for various things. The paperwork is always staggering and the supposed checks and balances are complicated. But it's obvious from the outcomes that some organizations just don't care about being honest and they get away with it - whereas the honest ones get turned down. I don't know why this is.
I will say this, though, that to expect to build modern "subdivision-style" houses in the North is just not feasible. Dealing with the permafrost is enormously expensive. The usual thing has been to slap up quick settlements, do a job, and then walk off leaving the mess behind.
The piles of junk left in the Arctic over the last 100 years are unbelievably huge.
Everyone's fingers are in the pie, and as with many government programs or projects, everyone feels quite willing to help themselves.
I've been involved in applying for grants for various things. The paperwork is always staggering and the supposed checks and balances are complicated. But it's obvious from the outcomes that some organizations just don't care about being honest and they get away with it - whereas the honest ones get turned down. I don't know why this is.
I will say this, though, that to expect to build modern "subdivision-style" houses in the North is just not feasible. Dealing with the permafrost is enormously expensive. The usual thing has been to slap up quick settlements, do a job, and then walk off leaving the mess behind.
The piles of junk left in the Arctic over the last 100 years are unbelievably huge.
Dig deeper.
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
I don't think anyone is expecting subdivisions, I certainly am not. I don't think modernization means subdivisions. I do think they are hoping successful housing like in areas much much farther north like Yellowknife, which does have "cities" as much as you can have in that far north. If people can live there long term, they should be able to live around James Bay which is farther south.
About the honest people getting turned down, that always is the way. I don't know what that says about the conditions to get the grants, if lying is necessary to get it.
I just did some scrolling and I realize, I missed one of your post Vison, sorry.
About the honest people getting turned down, that always is the way. I don't know what that says about the conditions to get the grants, if lying is necessary to get it.
I just did some scrolling and I realize, I missed one of your post Vison, sorry.
-
Hachimitsu
- Formerly Wilma
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
DP
Stupfid netbook, posts aren't even showing up on it. Gah!!
Stupfid netbook, posts aren't even showing up on it. Gah!!
Last edited by Hachimitsu on Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
It would appear that you found it.
I really appreciate what vision said in her last post.
Hesitating here to suggest anything beyond there is probably a way to make it work... being able to migrate would probably help. Think of alpine meadow use in summer vs in winter... or those modular floaty things the military uses to set up floating platforms quickly.
What I do know is it isn't for me to decide how to tackle this. As outsiders but fellow citizens, we should support any positive steps in what appears to be the right direction. We should also try to help hold anyone responsible for the bad that has happened accountable as best we can.
I really appreciate what vision said in her last post.
Hesitating here to suggest anything beyond there is probably a way to make it work... being able to migrate would probably help. Think of alpine meadow use in summer vs in winter... or those modular floaty things the military uses to set up floating platforms quickly.
What I do know is it isn't for me to decide how to tackle this. As outsiders but fellow citizens, we should support any positive steps in what appears to be the right direction. We should also try to help hold anyone responsible for the bad that has happened accountable as best we can.
This just came via CBC:
ETA and in case you weren't inclined to read the whole story (ie busy which is perfectly understandable) that fee comes out of the band's funds.
If this is characteristic of the government's dealings with reserves in general, the mystery of where the money went is a mystery no more. (The fee for this one service comes close to half a million annually.)The federal government is forcing the troubled Attawapiskat First Nation to pay a private-sector consultant about $1,300 a day to run its finances — even though the government's own assessments say the third-party management system is not cost-effective.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... costs.html
ETA and in case you weren't inclined to read the whole story (ie busy which is perfectly understandable) that fee comes out of the band's funds.