Thursday, February 4, 2010

I don't think Saskatchewan needed two universities much less three, but I understood the need of First Nations people to control their own destiny given the history of aboriginal people in Saskatchewan and Canada. It saddened me to watch the ongoing drama of FNUC and eventually, its pending demise.

The FNUC setback is hard enough for First Nations to bear, but coupled with the return of Jim Pankiw to politics, the provincial chiefs' nightmares have just begun. His "I'm Back" comment brings to mind the leering face of Jack Nicholson in The Shinning. He will stir up old prejudices and make unfounded allegations in order to create attention to his cause - racism. I am unclear as to what political office he will be seeking, but remembering his past successes, I won't write him off. And it doesn't matter at this point if he wins, what matters is the damage he will do trying to win.

I find it ironic that he would chastise the media for the reporting on him as they give him more press and free advertising than any politician could hope for and, as the old saying goes, "Bad press is better than no press."

One step forward, two steps back. Put on your rose-colored glasses or correct your myopia with a prescription for humanity.

23 comments:

  1. it is about time thank god he is back to shine a little light on the abuse and constant handouts that occur. equality for all is racist? since when?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I caught video of his press conference on the CBC website... while I have never and most likely would never agree with him politically, one has to wonder if he is not really mentally and/or physically unhealthy, judging from his shaking, incoherence, and twitching movements. He is not looking well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous 4:40 your views are obvioulsy as sick and racist as Pankiws. Sadly we will all have to listen to this racist garbage yet again!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous at 9:14.once again how is equality for all racist? instead of pc garbage and poor attempts to make me fell guility for being white come with an argument instead of name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you believe that us 'white' folk are treated unequally then one not need say anymore. The 'equality for all' argument these days is merely a guise for racism...
    Suggesting that we 'white' folk need be concerned about equal rights is simply a joke! get real!

    ReplyDelete
  6. very weak agrument pj2. if all are accorded the same rights and freedoms to pursue life as they see fit where is there room for racism? it is only when groups say we should be treated differently based on anything that racism can take hold.take your guilt, it is not my cross to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon@3:41

    You clearly need to learn about the Treaties, as your opinions are vapid and ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. why? i did not sign them. they are the worst enemy that native people have.now go ahead and start blah, blah, blahing so that you can have that nice warm pc feeling that gets NOTHING done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for evidencing reason #1 why you need to learn about the Treaties.

    As you are a citizen of the country, and they were signed by the Crown, you are legally bound by them.

    By your logic, as your signature also does not appear on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have no Charter rights.

    Nor would you have any right provided under any other law on the books that doesn't have your personal signature.

    Your ignorance only embarrasses yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. our charter is a joke that protects special interest groups pure and simple. when the indians follow the treaties as the were written and not as they wish them to be then i may look at them.there is a storm coming and we and they will reap what we sow.god help us but their sense of entitlement is only increased by your sense of guilt

    ReplyDelete
  11. "when the indians follow the treaties as the were written and not as they wish them to be then i may look at them"

    How can you make the claim that "indians" are not following the Treaties "as the were written" if you have yet to learn about Treaties?

    You should really go inform yourself. Debate without the facts is pointless and only further illustrates your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. nowhere does it say self government without controls funded by my taxes. nowhere does it say complete secondary education. too much gimme happening. as to facts when you come up with any then perhaps meaningful discussion can occur otherwise you are on the same level as white noise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "nowhere does it say self government without controls funded by my taxes. nowhere does it say complete secondary education. too much gimme happening"

    Could you please verify these statements? Otherwise, they are nothing more than vapid speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. read the same thing you are telling me to read. blah blah blah. anyway the original point i made has still to broached by your self. typical pc play to turn a valid point into the race card. nice turn but i am still guilt free.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "typical pc play to turn a valid point into the race card"

    How is asking for some knowledge about the Treaties to inform your opinions playing the race card?

    Ignorance will not resolve your concerns with Treaties.

    ReplyDelete
  16. refute my statements with treaty information. not what you think they say but what they really say and not the typical pc guilt crap you have been trying to lay on me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. While the onus is on you to prove your badly misinformed statements, I'll give you starting point to end your sad little diatribe.

    “The fact that the treaties were even made is evidence that First Nations governed themselves and were entitled to continue govern themselves. The treaty making process also confirms that this is how the Crown saw the First Nations” (p. 48)

    “Treaty 4 states that the Crown ‘agrees to maintain a school in the reserve allotted to each band as they settle on said reserve and are prepared for a teacher’ ... Treaty 8 includes a promise to ‘pay the salaries of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians’” (p. 52)

    source: http://docs.plea.org/pdf/Treaties%20and%20the%20Law%20Information%20Backgrounder.pdf

    And you may wish to read some of the works cited in this document - especially those of Dr. Sheila Carr-Stewart - as she is an internationally-regarded expert in this area.

    As well, the Office of the Treaty Commissioner has a great deal of learning resources (http://www.otc.ca/) as does the public library ( http://www.saskatoonlibrary.ca/)

    It’s time to step down from your soap box of ignorance, quit throwing vapid allegations into the public domain, and start learning.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is vapid someones word of the day? cute. How come we have FNUC and the US has the United Negroe College but if someone wanted to have a Caucasian University the world would come off the rails? Just thought I'd ask.

    ReplyDelete
  19. you just proved my point about education by quoting treay 4. thank you.as to self governance, fine but as i said above not with my tax dollars, let them do it with the yearly money we must pay. i think it is $25 per head.as to the soap box the only one i see is the one you seem to trip over. still guilt free sorry i owe them nothing but equality no more no less

    ReplyDelete
  20. "you just proved my point about education by quoting treay 4"

    Do you even know what secondary education is? It appears not, as you were proven wrong by "treay 4".

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  21. yeah because the u of s is a on reserve school. nice try. enforce the treaties as written not as you or others with them to be.still guilt free.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You were venting that "nowhere does it claim complete secondary education". Secondary education is high school education. You should at least attempt to get basic facts correct before shooting your mouth off.

    There's clearly no point further debating Treaties, funding structures in education, and equality with you when you don't even understand basic terminology, let alone facts, history, and Treaty negotiation, nor do you actually bring any new data to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. sorry forgot the post part. once again when you can not attack the agrument you attack the person.i am the only one in this discussion that has brought data from your precisous treaties. you on the other hand have attacked myself, played the race card and still will not answer the original question. here i will state it for you one last time.how can racism occur when all are equal.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.