Earlier this month, the Tribe hired a company known as the Falmouth Institute to fly into Grand Ronde and lecture a number of us on enrollment requirements. The name of the training was “Amending and Updating Enrollment Requirements”. Costs for this training were more than $5000, in fact it might have been closer to $8000. We had elected to bring the training to us because most of Council and the Enrollment committee expressed a desire to attend the conference/workshop, what with our present situation and all, and the session that drew interest was to be held in Las Vegas (for the record I’ve never attended a conference in Vegas, but of all places I can’t think of one that would provide more distractions from any sort of productivity.) Our decision to host our own Falmouth deal was purely because had we spent the money for airfare, per diem, hotel rooms and conference registration, the cost would have soared who knows how high.
I haven’t finished reading the 1.5 inch-thick booklet that accompanies the training. But I did sit in on the two-day session that was held at the Education Division classroom, along with four other Council members and nearly the entire Enrollment Committee, plus various staff from Enrollment Dept., Member Services, and invariably, Legal.
To say that the training was “enlightening” might be a stretch, and somehow “informative” seems like an understatement. I can definitely say “insightful”, because the man who they sent to lecture us, Terry Rainey, also works for us through the Election Board. He is the tall professional-looking fellow sent down to oversee our Tribal Council elections as a third-party administrator. His knowledge of other tribes, while not scholarly, is somewhat encyclopedic–he know the goings-on of numerous tribes, and that information came in handy throughout our discussions.
Given that we met for 12 hours over two days, it would be hard to give a brief summary. While enrollment seems like a simple subject on its face, it becomes quite complex when you start getting into family histories, blood quantum (one tribe has got the denominator down to 2048), and the increasingly complicated realm of DNA-testing. In Grand Ronde we have a simple line, you are either a Tribal member or you ain’t. With other tribes its not quite so simple.
Some tribes, Rainey told us, have “standings” for their members. Felonious tribal members might find themselves getting less benefits. One tribe will garnish per capita should they prove that a man is selling his sperm. In the case Rainey cited, a fellow was penalized $500,000 in per capita for selling his sperm to five different women. Of course, that particular tribe also gives out $20,000 per month in per capita. Another tribe also penalized an incarcerated tribal member who impregnated two different women during conjugal visits.
Rainey also pointed out the chaos that ensues when tribal laws are inconsistent. With a tribe in the mid-West, one man was elected to the Chair position by reaching out to non-local members and campaigning on high per capita. It worked in the election. Problem was that same tribe could remove Council members with a certain number of votes at General Council meetings, which is precisely what happened. Not surprisingly, with such a law, Rainey added, that tribe had gone through eight chairs (presidents, actually) in 10 years, with only one serving the entire duration of the four-year term.
A lot of what this training confirmed for me was how chaotic many of the situations have become in Indian country, and not with just enrollment. My suspicions these days are that Indian gaming brought more problems, like high-stakes greed and power-mongering, that many tribes weren’t prepared to deal with, as is demonstrated by what appears to be loopholes in tribal laws and constitutions. I think sometimes that tribes must be very hard entities to work for, being constantly political, and stability more a dream than reality.
I believe enrollment, like gaming, is the one issue that symbolizes the struggles tribes must face, and even then it all boils down to a struggle for resources, to keeping the slices of pie thick versus thin. In many ways, its sad. I thought about all this during the training because it was obvious that there were people present who wanted the upcoming Constitutional election to crash and burn. As we introduced ourselves during day one, and revealed our expectations, even that took a political tone. The movement to amend our Constitution was blown off as people just wanting money and benefits. I had to bite my tongue on a couple of occasions. For one, it bothers me to no end to hear one or two Council members popping off about his whole issue when only two weeks previously they sat there at the General Council meeting and told the membership it was important to not have an opinion. Second, it would seem that opposing the amendment is fueled by a fear of getting less. Because if it cost us nothing (or little), but would mean a better life for others, why on earth would we oppose it?
Insightful, indeed.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
The Audacity of Hope
“The Audacity of Hope” (2006)
I can’t defend the fact that the age group which I belong to, that of the 18-40 year old demographic, is one of the worst in terms of political involvement and voter turnout. As a matter of fact I would almost bet the percentage is the same if not worse for presidential elections as in Grand Ronde Tribal Council elections. There are probably all sorts of theories, some of them correct and others way off, which can explain this—laziness, disinterest, self-absorption, iPods, MTV, the internet, rap music, etc. I am not even going to try and weigh any of them against one another.
However, in my own personal view, there have been enough ugly episodes in Presidential politics over the last ten years, and to be fair this includes Bush and Clinton, and few candidates or politicians who have made a sustained genuine attempt to reach out to my generation, that it isn’t shocking that I don’t exactly jump with excitement with the approach of 2008 and its elections. But I must admit in 2004 seeing Barack Obama speak during the 2004 Democratic convention perked my interest. He definitely caught inspired me more than John Kerry did that year.
I am really kind of happy to see him catching up with Hillary Clinton in the polls. Rooting for the underdog is something I routinely do. In 2000 both Bill Bradley and John McCain, the two runner-ups during the respective party primaries, caught my attention more than either of the final candidates. It seems that in Democratic and Republican parties the more ambitious candidates spread themselves too thin, trying to pose some sort of mass appeal. I realize that is probably the wiser course of action for a candidate really trying to win, but they end up watering themselves down so much I personally lose interest.
After reading Barack Obama’s book I must say he really is good at instilling a sense of hope in people. Whether or not he can sustain that sense if elected is probably another story, but for now he is the first candidate in a long time to actually get me excited, no offense to any Hillary or Giuliani supporters. What I especially like about him is he can write really, really well.
His book doesn’t sidestep any of the major issues, and he gets really personal with a few of them. There are some interesting stories about the tribulations of being a high-profile politician, like one about an aide trying to make him use French’s mustard instead of Dijon on his burger lest any photographers be around and snap him living the high life. He is also very candid about his faith and race. I had no idea he spent a good portion of his childhood in Indonesia, which has undoubtedly been very influential in shaping his view of the world. One of the more interesting chapters deals with his family, and I wonder whether his wife might have gotten upset with his openness.
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I think “The Audacity of Hope” is worth reading, at the very least for an honest glimpse at some of the day-to-day occurrences that a Senator must experience. There is one section towards the end that I can really relate to, and that is being in the minority and knowing an idea will go nowhere. But I guess the real definition of hope is optimism against the odds, knowing that if you keep fighting, maybe that idea will one day come to fruition.
I can’t defend the fact that the age group which I belong to, that of the 18-40 year old demographic, is one of the worst in terms of political involvement and voter turnout. As a matter of fact I would almost bet the percentage is the same if not worse for presidential elections as in Grand Ronde Tribal Council elections. There are probably all sorts of theories, some of them correct and others way off, which can explain this—laziness, disinterest, self-absorption, iPods, MTV, the internet, rap music, etc. I am not even going to try and weigh any of them against one another.
However, in my own personal view, there have been enough ugly episodes in Presidential politics over the last ten years, and to be fair this includes Bush and Clinton, and few candidates or politicians who have made a sustained genuine attempt to reach out to my generation, that it isn’t shocking that I don’t exactly jump with excitement with the approach of 2008 and its elections. But I must admit in 2004 seeing Barack Obama speak during the 2004 Democratic convention perked my interest. He definitely caught inspired me more than John Kerry did that year.
I am really kind of happy to see him catching up with Hillary Clinton in the polls. Rooting for the underdog is something I routinely do. In 2000 both Bill Bradley and John McCain, the two runner-ups during the respective party primaries, caught my attention more than either of the final candidates. It seems that in Democratic and Republican parties the more ambitious candidates spread themselves too thin, trying to pose some sort of mass appeal. I realize that is probably the wiser course of action for a candidate really trying to win, but they end up watering themselves down so much I personally lose interest.
After reading Barack Obama’s book I must say he really is good at instilling a sense of hope in people. Whether or not he can sustain that sense if elected is probably another story, but for now he is the first candidate in a long time to actually get me excited, no offense to any Hillary or Giuliani supporters. What I especially like about him is he can write really, really well.
His book doesn’t sidestep any of the major issues, and he gets really personal with a few of them. There are some interesting stories about the tribulations of being a high-profile politician, like one about an aide trying to make him use French’s mustard instead of Dijon on his burger lest any photographers be around and snap him living the high life. He is also very candid about his faith and race. I had no idea he spent a good portion of his childhood in Indonesia, which has undoubtedly been very influential in shaping his view of the world. One of the more interesting chapters deals with his family, and I wonder whether his wife might have gotten upset with his openness.
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I think “The Audacity of Hope” is worth reading, at the very least for an honest glimpse at some of the day-to-day occurrences that a Senator must experience. There is one section towards the end that I can really relate to, and that is being in the minority and knowing an idea will go nowhere. But I guess the real definition of hope is optimism against the odds, knowing that if you keep fighting, maybe that idea will one day come to fruition.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Us versus Them
They are up to something, I was told. Just watch, the way they are acting. They are being very quiet. That guy, who is usually pretty friendly, won’t make eye contact. He is usually reliable for a “good morning” at the very least. So-and-so seems very nervous and apprehensive. There is some tension in the air, and it is thick, just about undeniable. The ultimate historian, time, will soon let us know what is afoot. Until then I must choose between being on guard or being amused, if not both.
I like watching “Survivor”, because so often certain aspects of the show mirror my job. The bigger differences are that over here it’s not a game, and what is at stake is much more than a million dollar payday for some lucky or wily individual. Plus we don’t have physical challenges, and depending on who comprises the Council there might as well be multiple immunity idols. Other than those, a lot of details are the same-- the scheming, the alliances, the sharing of spoils for victors, the hushed conversations that suddenly end when a non-trusted person enters the vicinity.
I try to be realistic and convince myself that perhaps I am making too many assumptions, maybe once in a while my co-workers, some of whom signed their name toward efforts that amounted to ousting me last election, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this isn’t some grand war for control of our Tribe and resources.
But as I drive towards lunch today in Willamina, it is hard not to notice the four cars of my co-workers all parked within feet of one another outside of Coyote Joes, a diner that some go to for privacy as the only other two in Grand Ronde, Legends at Spirit Mountain and Fort Hill, are like midday employee hotspots. It’s either an odd coincidence or perhaps they really are up to something.
Realistically, they very well could be deciding a major decision there that will eventually end up in chambers for a formal vote. To my knowledge there is nothing illegal about that, even if one were able to prove it. But for some reason in the present context of our Tribe, amidst some supposed effort to unite everybody, such a scenario doesn’t seem right. As a matter of fact, it would seem outright wrong, once again though not illegal, were that really the case.
But then again maybe it really wouldn’t be wrong if we were to be more open about stances on certain issues, and more importantly, whatever allegiances we may have towards one another and fellow Council members. What I mean, really, is that if this Council would be honest about whatever political alliances exist, about the fact that despite the effort to the contrary our Tribe has become so partisan that yes, there are political parties and yes, some of us belong to them.
I think back to the 2004 ABC campaign and the subsequent PPP endeavor that followed the next year. We were being very, very open about whom we were, who we supported, and what we stood for. I still think that this is the way to be in politics. The downside to that though is you take some lumps, and in Grand Ronde there was an “old guard”, to borrow a saying from some Californian Tribal Chair who was referring to the former ruling class of his own tribe, who were not too happy about our movement, probably because for some of them it meant the end of their political careers. As I’ve seen the last two elections, that same “old guard” united and won five out of six seats. In other words, they mimicked what we did. What happened in 2007 was a coordinated effort to kick out the reformers, regardless of accomplishments. I might have been lucky to survive.
I take none of that personally because historically devotion to party lines a good deal of the time means opposing someone you like and agree with on some issues. I can say with absolute certainty that in 2004 not all the incumbents deserved to be ousted so lopsidedly. But change then was desperately needed and there are bystanders to every upheaval.
What I do take personally though is promoting the notion that this is a more unified Council than before when in fact that is not the case. One group has gained control which will not be yielded for a while if at all, even if there is a change of heart in one of their members. Knowing some of the people I work with, unity will never come until their party occupies each and every seat of Council. And I am almost positive such a takeover would not be beneficial to the Tribe. Eliminating all other competing political parties is hardly unity.
There have been three decisions made since the election that smacked of partisan politics. The discussions leading up to them all had that rehearsed quality and feel to them which made me almost certain they had been plotted out beforehand. One was to stop the Constitutional election and resubmit language into three separate parts. Another is the new censorship on the “Tilixam Wawa”. The last was one made in total confidentiality last week and I am very reluctant to disclose because it seems I won’t be cut much slack, and quite frankly I am uncertain of the legal issues. But it was precedent-setting, that much I know. All three of these decisions were 6-3 votes, with the Council who ran under or endorsed the Wisdom, Integrity, Family slates voting one way, the remainder, me and two others, voting in the minority. Furthermore, they are decisions that before September 8, 2007 would have never been made.
Is Grand Ronde on its way to a two-party system? I don’t know. Parties need to stand for something, to have qualities and beliefs that they supposedly uphold and represent, and once again that requires more candidness than we’ve seen the last two years. Plus it might be easier for one party to win more converts if they deny all allegiance and blind loyalty to one another, and constantly proclaim they stand for unity...logos, slogans, and private lunches notwithstanding.
I like watching “Survivor”, because so often certain aspects of the show mirror my job. The bigger differences are that over here it’s not a game, and what is at stake is much more than a million dollar payday for some lucky or wily individual. Plus we don’t have physical challenges, and depending on who comprises the Council there might as well be multiple immunity idols. Other than those, a lot of details are the same-- the scheming, the alliances, the sharing of spoils for victors, the hushed conversations that suddenly end when a non-trusted person enters the vicinity.
I try to be realistic and convince myself that perhaps I am making too many assumptions, maybe once in a while my co-workers, some of whom signed their name toward efforts that amounted to ousting me last election, should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this isn’t some grand war for control of our Tribe and resources.
But as I drive towards lunch today in Willamina, it is hard not to notice the four cars of my co-workers all parked within feet of one another outside of Coyote Joes, a diner that some go to for privacy as the only other two in Grand Ronde, Legends at Spirit Mountain and Fort Hill, are like midday employee hotspots. It’s either an odd coincidence or perhaps they really are up to something.
Realistically, they very well could be deciding a major decision there that will eventually end up in chambers for a formal vote. To my knowledge there is nothing illegal about that, even if one were able to prove it. But for some reason in the present context of our Tribe, amidst some supposed effort to unite everybody, such a scenario doesn’t seem right. As a matter of fact, it would seem outright wrong, once again though not illegal, were that really the case.
But then again maybe it really wouldn’t be wrong if we were to be more open about stances on certain issues, and more importantly, whatever allegiances we may have towards one another and fellow Council members. What I mean, really, is that if this Council would be honest about whatever political alliances exist, about the fact that despite the effort to the contrary our Tribe has become so partisan that yes, there are political parties and yes, some of us belong to them.
I think back to the 2004 ABC campaign and the subsequent PPP endeavor that followed the next year. We were being very, very open about whom we were, who we supported, and what we stood for. I still think that this is the way to be in politics. The downside to that though is you take some lumps, and in Grand Ronde there was an “old guard”, to borrow a saying from some Californian Tribal Chair who was referring to the former ruling class of his own tribe, who were not too happy about our movement, probably because for some of them it meant the end of their political careers. As I’ve seen the last two elections, that same “old guard” united and won five out of six seats. In other words, they mimicked what we did. What happened in 2007 was a coordinated effort to kick out the reformers, regardless of accomplishments. I might have been lucky to survive.
I take none of that personally because historically devotion to party lines a good deal of the time means opposing someone you like and agree with on some issues. I can say with absolute certainty that in 2004 not all the incumbents deserved to be ousted so lopsidedly. But change then was desperately needed and there are bystanders to every upheaval.
What I do take personally though is promoting the notion that this is a more unified Council than before when in fact that is not the case. One group has gained control which will not be yielded for a while if at all, even if there is a change of heart in one of their members. Knowing some of the people I work with, unity will never come until their party occupies each and every seat of Council. And I am almost positive such a takeover would not be beneficial to the Tribe. Eliminating all other competing political parties is hardly unity.
There have been three decisions made since the election that smacked of partisan politics. The discussions leading up to them all had that rehearsed quality and feel to them which made me almost certain they had been plotted out beforehand. One was to stop the Constitutional election and resubmit language into three separate parts. Another is the new censorship on the “Tilixam Wawa”. The last was one made in total confidentiality last week and I am very reluctant to disclose because it seems I won’t be cut much slack, and quite frankly I am uncertain of the legal issues. But it was precedent-setting, that much I know. All three of these decisions were 6-3 votes, with the Council who ran under or endorsed the Wisdom, Integrity, Family slates voting one way, the remainder, me and two others, voting in the minority. Furthermore, they are decisions that before September 8, 2007 would have never been made.
Is Grand Ronde on its way to a two-party system? I don’t know. Parties need to stand for something, to have qualities and beliefs that they supposedly uphold and represent, and once again that requires more candidness than we’ve seen the last two years. Plus it might be easier for one party to win more converts if they deny all allegiance and blind loyalty to one another, and constantly proclaim they stand for unity...logos, slogans, and private lunches notwithstanding.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Anecdote as Policy
Back in 2005 I attended the Native American Journalists Association Annual Conference in Lincoln, Nebraska. NAJA’s theme that year was “A Free Press, A Free People”, which is ironic given our meeting last Wednesday regarding how we could develop some neo-censorship policies about the Tilixam Wawa, a discussion I thought was going to die, or at least would kill me.
But more on that later.
At this conference I was lucky enough to sit in on the filming of a program for Nebraska Public Television, and the show was really a debate featuring a wide range of guests, from a professor, to a priest, to a Tribal leader, to most importantly, what appeared to be some sort of specialist in Tribal economic development. The purpose of the debate was to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of Indian gaming.
Given the audience was mostly people attending the NAJA Conference, in other words, Indians, I can’t really say the debate ended up being very fair for the priest, who appeared to be the only one that opposed tribal gaming, mostly on his own moral grounds. To be completely fair though, he didn’t do himself any favors by denouncing Indian gaming due also in part to his own experiences counseling people who came to him with problems. The professor and economic development specialist in particular had a lot of fun at his expense. At one point I remember very clearly the E.D. fellow, an Indian from the Dakotas, calling the priest out and telling the audience “He likes anecdotes. I like facts myself.”
I am very well aware that Indian gaming arrives with new problems. But watching that show, it would have been hard to walk away feeling convinced that the problems of Indian gaming outweigh the benefits. The Economic guy and the professor were able to point at very concrete examples of poor Tribes digging themselves out of poverty, of a least one scenario of how unemployment dropped once a certain reservation built a casino, and a number of other occasions that demonstrated the merits of Indian gaming. The poor priest got flustered because his own arguments were often really anecdotes, like “well one guy at my church developed a serious problem” or “one family really had problems”. At the end they all shook hands of course, and the priest disappeared from the set instantly, a little embarrassed, while the other guests stayed and mingled with us.
Ironically, the whole point of my anecdote here is that I had never spent much time considering how misleading anecdotes can be when used as a tool or guide in policy making. Anecdotes are experiences. Experiences affect our worldview, our beliefs, and for many if not most are the foundations of our opinions. All of us like to believe that the opinions we hold are right. And when considering some of the graver issues facing us in our lives and politics, Tribal or mainstream, nobody likes to be told that their opinion is wrong, especially when the person telling us has had completely different experiences from us. If they had seen what I saw, or been through what I’ve been through, we think, they would certainly see that I am right.
The problem is, even then, we can be off the mark, or worse yet, dead wrong. Our experience could have been part of some freak occurrence, rare event, or infrequent slice of a larger context. I could go to New York City twice, for one day each time, get mugged, and from then on nobody would convince me that NYC isn’t amongst the world’s dangerous places, right on par with the Gaza Strip or the barrios of Rio de Janeiro maybe places I’ve also been. Every time I go to the Bronx, I would tell people truthfully, I get mugged.
This seems like something problematic that all of us must grapple with in our own individual ways. I think it becomes a greater problem when people in positions of power or authority use misleading and sometimes over-exaggerated anecdotes as a means to convince others that the decisions being made are what is in the best interests of whichever constituency they govern. For reasons that are probably a lot simpler than I would like to admit, the anecdotes of others in positions of power tend to be taken as fact, probably because the deliverer of the anecdote has carefully crafted or worded his anecdote in a way everybody can understand and agree with. Plus, I think that the authority which accompanies a position of power often times gets mistaken with expertise, which in turn enhances the anecdote and confers greater credibility than if some person off the street said the same thing. You will be seeing this a lot in the upcoming presidential elections, as candidates will each share their anecdote about whatever issue is pertinent, in the hopes that voters should think “Yeah, you know he’s right! Why I’ve experienced a similar situation myself.”
Anyhow, I am not ranting, but getting to my ultimate point, which is that anecdotes, while entertaining and insightful, can be misleading, not only to the person who experienced it but to those who listen to the story. And my ultimate point is I think that sometimes the teller knows it is misleading.
Our meeting about the Tilixam Wawa on Wednesday was a classic example of using anecdotes as justification for making a decision that is clearly not right, and I am not buying it for one instant. In what seemed like a rehearsed discussion, I was informed by numerous Council members how they had been “hearing from the membership” that “the members” are tired of the “us vs. them” mentality, of seeing nine different Council members express nine different opinions. In the interest of unity, we need to be united, and not be having articles expressing different opinions. If a Council member wants to express their opinion, the Council member who appears to be driving the issue told me, then they should spend their own money and mail out a letter to the membership. I didn’t ask if that meant Council would supply me with a mailing list to do so, my hunch is no.
Now to be fair, I must consider whether what they say is true. I find myself being incredibly skeptical. I’ve generally got a good memory of what comments are made during Council meetings. Furthermore, I doubt anybody on Council spends more time actually reading the comments of the few Tribal internet sites than I do. I really can’t think of any threads or comments from people making the kinds of complaints that are supposedly being made to my fellow Council members. If anything, I think the membership would love to have all nine Council members every issue explaining some of their opinions. I think this because the only time we did such a thing, the August 2007 SMGI issue, more than 1200 Tribal members voted! Furthermore, I am not sure if there was a single comment about the Wawa and opinions at our Strategic Futures Conference, which was all about member input. Lastly, my own personal anecdote-esque experiences usually are people indicating how much they appreciate what I’ve written. Not everyone agrees, but it’s nice to have a Council member explain something.
Now unless my fellow Council members can provide me with a survey or some sort of written log of member comments that mirror what they told me last Wednesday, and really it would take a lot of comments to convince me, then I can only assume that this is all politics. Vague and maybe even unsubstantiated comments are being used as grounds for a decision, partisan government censorship, that historically has never been popular, nor the sign of good intentions. It would take a whole heck of a lot of anecdotes to convince me of anything else.
But more on that later.
At this conference I was lucky enough to sit in on the filming of a program for Nebraska Public Television, and the show was really a debate featuring a wide range of guests, from a professor, to a priest, to a Tribal leader, to most importantly, what appeared to be some sort of specialist in Tribal economic development. The purpose of the debate was to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of Indian gaming.
Given the audience was mostly people attending the NAJA Conference, in other words, Indians, I can’t really say the debate ended up being very fair for the priest, who appeared to be the only one that opposed tribal gaming, mostly on his own moral grounds. To be completely fair though, he didn’t do himself any favors by denouncing Indian gaming due also in part to his own experiences counseling people who came to him with problems. The professor and economic development specialist in particular had a lot of fun at his expense. At one point I remember very clearly the E.D. fellow, an Indian from the Dakotas, calling the priest out and telling the audience “He likes anecdotes. I like facts myself.”
I am very well aware that Indian gaming arrives with new problems. But watching that show, it would have been hard to walk away feeling convinced that the problems of Indian gaming outweigh the benefits. The Economic guy and the professor were able to point at very concrete examples of poor Tribes digging themselves out of poverty, of a least one scenario of how unemployment dropped once a certain reservation built a casino, and a number of other occasions that demonstrated the merits of Indian gaming. The poor priest got flustered because his own arguments were often really anecdotes, like “well one guy at my church developed a serious problem” or “one family really had problems”. At the end they all shook hands of course, and the priest disappeared from the set instantly, a little embarrassed, while the other guests stayed and mingled with us.
Ironically, the whole point of my anecdote here is that I had never spent much time considering how misleading anecdotes can be when used as a tool or guide in policy making. Anecdotes are experiences. Experiences affect our worldview, our beliefs, and for many if not most are the foundations of our opinions. All of us like to believe that the opinions we hold are right. And when considering some of the graver issues facing us in our lives and politics, Tribal or mainstream, nobody likes to be told that their opinion is wrong, especially when the person telling us has had completely different experiences from us. If they had seen what I saw, or been through what I’ve been through, we think, they would certainly see that I am right.
The problem is, even then, we can be off the mark, or worse yet, dead wrong. Our experience could have been part of some freak occurrence, rare event, or infrequent slice of a larger context. I could go to New York City twice, for one day each time, get mugged, and from then on nobody would convince me that NYC isn’t amongst the world’s dangerous places, right on par with the Gaza Strip or the barrios of Rio de Janeiro maybe places I’ve also been. Every time I go to the Bronx, I would tell people truthfully, I get mugged.
This seems like something problematic that all of us must grapple with in our own individual ways. I think it becomes a greater problem when people in positions of power or authority use misleading and sometimes over-exaggerated anecdotes as a means to convince others that the decisions being made are what is in the best interests of whichever constituency they govern. For reasons that are probably a lot simpler than I would like to admit, the anecdotes of others in positions of power tend to be taken as fact, probably because the deliverer of the anecdote has carefully crafted or worded his anecdote in a way everybody can understand and agree with. Plus, I think that the authority which accompanies a position of power often times gets mistaken with expertise, which in turn enhances the anecdote and confers greater credibility than if some person off the street said the same thing. You will be seeing this a lot in the upcoming presidential elections, as candidates will each share their anecdote about whatever issue is pertinent, in the hopes that voters should think “Yeah, you know he’s right! Why I’ve experienced a similar situation myself.”
Anyhow, I am not ranting, but getting to my ultimate point, which is that anecdotes, while entertaining and insightful, can be misleading, not only to the person who experienced it but to those who listen to the story. And my ultimate point is I think that sometimes the teller knows it is misleading.
Our meeting about the Tilixam Wawa on Wednesday was a classic example of using anecdotes as justification for making a decision that is clearly not right, and I am not buying it for one instant. In what seemed like a rehearsed discussion, I was informed by numerous Council members how they had been “hearing from the membership” that “the members” are tired of the “us vs. them” mentality, of seeing nine different Council members express nine different opinions. In the interest of unity, we need to be united, and not be having articles expressing different opinions. If a Council member wants to express their opinion, the Council member who appears to be driving the issue told me, then they should spend their own money and mail out a letter to the membership. I didn’t ask if that meant Council would supply me with a mailing list to do so, my hunch is no.
Now to be fair, I must consider whether what they say is true. I find myself being incredibly skeptical. I’ve generally got a good memory of what comments are made during Council meetings. Furthermore, I doubt anybody on Council spends more time actually reading the comments of the few Tribal internet sites than I do. I really can’t think of any threads or comments from people making the kinds of complaints that are supposedly being made to my fellow Council members. If anything, I think the membership would love to have all nine Council members every issue explaining some of their opinions. I think this because the only time we did such a thing, the August 2007 SMGI issue, more than 1200 Tribal members voted! Furthermore, I am not sure if there was a single comment about the Wawa and opinions at our Strategic Futures Conference, which was all about member input. Lastly, my own personal anecdote-esque experiences usually are people indicating how much they appreciate what I’ve written. Not everyone agrees, but it’s nice to have a Council member explain something.
Now unless my fellow Council members can provide me with a survey or some sort of written log of member comments that mirror what they told me last Wednesday, and really it would take a lot of comments to convince me, then I can only assume that this is all politics. Vague and maybe even unsubstantiated comments are being used as grounds for a decision, partisan government censorship, that historically has never been popular, nor the sign of good intentions. It would take a whole heck of a lot of anecdotes to convince me of anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
