1. According to Hollands, what is problematic about many studies of Native youth in Canada? (3)
According to Hollands, what is problematic about many studies of Native youth in Canada are they focus on a small portion of the Native life and and misinterpret the actual lifestyle of the Native life. The studies are primarily focused on only the perspective of social problems, including drug abuse, within the Native life and do not concern any other aspects of their lifestyle. Other aspects include, how economic changes have led to less employment opportunities for the native youth. Also, the Native community is considered a young demographic; however, studies on the youth focus on broad questions and observations that apply to a larger age …show more content…
Hollands reports that Mohawk participation in pickerel spearing is a point of contention between Natives and non-Natives. What would be the culturally relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing? What would the ethnocentric view of pickerel spearing be? (4)
The culturally relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing would have a more equal approach as different cultures have different values. Ttherefore all groups should be treated as equal in regard to pickerel spearing. The natives demonstrated more cultural relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing as John in the focus group stated the whites and natives should be able to both fish the same way, and the rules should not be off special rights. The Mohawks also believed they were not receiving special rights, instead they were just granted with rights which they should have always had from equality.
The ethnocentric view of pickerel spearing would be a group with the belief that they have special rights and are superior to fish in which that the other groups do not. The whites demonstrated a more ethnocentric approach as they believed they natives had special rights that they didn’t and it wasn’t fair. The whites had racist attitudes, instead of respect for both cultures. Cathy, a white in the focus group also stated that the natives were talking “our fish” in respect to all whites, demonstrating the view of …show more content…
Throughout the analysis Holland introduces different opinions, scenarios and observations and for each one he is able to further explain using insight from natives experiencing the topics he touches on. Holland uses many scholarly secondary resources to validate his points and opinions, he also provides further notes to explain a few of his points. The use of these resources is significant because makes his argument more valid rather than opinion based as his points are elaborated on with the use of studies and reports. The biggest weakness of Holland’s analysis. A weakness in Holland’s analysis also relates to his supporting argument from secondary arguments as the analysis was published in 2004, many of his supporting facts could be considered outdated. To support life past events Holland uses scenarios from dates as old as 1977 which are acceptable; however, he refers to older studies in older years such as 1988 which could be irrelevant or inaccurate to support his opinions of the current native situation at the time of writing his
According to Hollands, what is problematic about many studies of Native youth in Canada are they focus on a small portion of the Native life and and misinterpret the actual lifestyle of the Native life. The studies are primarily focused on only the perspective of social problems, including drug abuse, within the Native life and do not concern any other aspects of their lifestyle. Other aspects include, how economic changes have led to less employment opportunities for the native youth. Also, the Native community is considered a young demographic; however, studies on the youth focus on broad questions and observations that apply to a larger age …show more content…
Hollands reports that Mohawk participation in pickerel spearing is a point of contention between Natives and non-Natives. What would be the culturally relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing? What would the ethnocentric view of pickerel spearing be? (4)
The culturally relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing would have a more equal approach as different cultures have different values. Ttherefore all groups should be treated as equal in regard to pickerel spearing. The natives demonstrated more cultural relativistic manner of viewing pickerel spearing as John in the focus group stated the whites and natives should be able to both fish the same way, and the rules should not be off special rights. The Mohawks also believed they were not receiving special rights, instead they were just granted with rights which they should have always had from equality.
The ethnocentric view of pickerel spearing would be a group with the belief that they have special rights and are superior to fish in which that the other groups do not. The whites demonstrated a more ethnocentric approach as they believed they natives had special rights that they didn’t and it wasn’t fair. The whites had racist attitudes, instead of respect for both cultures. Cathy, a white in the focus group also stated that the natives were talking “our fish” in respect to all whites, demonstrating the view of …show more content…
Throughout the analysis Holland introduces different opinions, scenarios and observations and for each one he is able to further explain using insight from natives experiencing the topics he touches on. Holland uses many scholarly secondary resources to validate his points and opinions, he also provides further notes to explain a few of his points. The use of these resources is significant because makes his argument more valid rather than opinion based as his points are elaborated on with the use of studies and reports. The biggest weakness of Holland’s analysis. A weakness in Holland’s analysis also relates to his supporting argument from secondary arguments as the analysis was published in 2004, many of his supporting facts could be considered outdated. To support life past events Holland uses scenarios from dates as old as 1977 which are acceptable; however, he refers to older studies in older years such as 1988 which could be irrelevant or inaccurate to support his opinions of the current native situation at the time of writing his