Pankiw and Ahenakew sitting in a tree...

To begin with, this is a quote from an article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wsask0306/BNStory/National/home
“Daniel Poulin, a lawyer for the human rights commission, said since the pamphlets aren't subject to the act, the panel was unable to consider whether Mr. Pankiw's statements were objectionable.”
Jim Pankiw- what gets me is how racism-discrimination is such a hard thing to understand. Certainly it is related to oppression, and that is why advantaged people have such a hard time understanding it. If you attack an already oppressed group of people, you are irresponsible. It is akin to the lowest of blows, it is nothing more that dirty fighting. Moreover, how do you use equality against an already disadvantaged people? Seems to me the constitution got it right. Need I remind you Section 15(2) states: “Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantage individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race...”
The only reasoning I can come up as to why equality is used is because it is all about keeping the disadvantaged out. Yet this country was built with advantages, it is therefore hard to see how not allowing advantages to others is against the status quo. I would also think the constitution has a higher ideal/principle than some emotional opposition. Imagine if equality started at the inception of this country, there would be no reserves and the First Nations people would not be controlled and dominated by some legislation.

Now in terms of Ahenakew: To begin with, I believe that the views espoused by Ahenakew clearly came from a different source other than from himself. In fact Ahenakew’s words sound like they are merely repeated, and so the depth of his attitude remains in question. Ahenakew appears if anything to be a middleman; the crime comes from those who held such deep attitudes of hatred to the Jews. This hatred for Jewish people had to of come from those who interacted with them on a personal level. And because of that it is hard to see Ahenakew as being a hard-lined racist, against Jewish people. Unfortunately Ahenakew spoke, he got caught, and as a result the real perpetrators are getting away. If anyone should be indicted it should be those who hold such deep attitudes of hatred.

Here is a quote from a blog, “ i don’t share ahenekew’s position one bit, but as far as i know he never encouraged anyone to harm a jewish person, and he was (once) charged with promoting hatred for simply answering a question truthfully. the ku klux klan is known to act violently against blacks. Jews and homosexuals yet they are allowed to hold meetings, in national parks no less.” http://www.breakfastmeat.com/2006/06/ahenekew-vs-kkkcanada-vs-usa.html

By using a situation that involves a venerable and emotional old man, is nothing more than exploitation. Ahenakew will never get forgiveness from the general public, but unlike the colonial way his forgiveness does not depend on them.
Complaining about how the justice system is serving a minority is also another attempt at manipulating the facts; I then have to ask should justice serve only the dominant majority. Will society be better by denying justice to an already disadvantaged people? Yet it seems the rising sentiment of the majority is nothing more than, riding roughshod over the minority and their disadvantages.
Race is a small factor, yet some people make it a big factor. It is these people who are the ones who cause problems in our society; they are the ones who need to be reprimanded. They are the ones who bring the rifts in our society.
So in the end it is always about Natives, First Nations, aboriginals, it is sensationalism- too bad cause natives really are sensational.
If there is anything I do believe it is that the Ahenakew and Pankiw cases tend bring out the racist views.
Moreover, the most disturbing thing about the Ahenakew and Pankiw case is the anti-native sentiments that seem to follow and are expressed.
Hopefully there will be an outcry over Pankiw as there was for Ahenakew.
Ekosi

Ears to hear

 

Let us allow more years of repression to continue. That is the extent of not allowing the native voice to be heard and not just heard but to allow native opinion to be given the venue of expression. There is a different perspective than just mainstream or the dominant societies' view. Canada will never be the democratic country if all it does is promote just the non-native view. Surely everything is relative; if there is no voice, there will be no change, and so I ask why complain about the native problems if that is the way things are. It is one thing to sensationalize natives in the news but it is another thing to keep out their perspective-opinions. It sounds pretty hypocritical, if you complain but allow the people who are in the midst of these problems to have no say. What is wrong with the great democratic country, where freedom of expression is not given to the oppressed?

Maybe it is the harsh words that are generated from native people, but years of repression have a way of doing that to a person: Remembering those thousand injustices. If all it does is prick the conscience of the dominant majority, that is a small price to pay compared to the hopelessness that comes from inabilities and frustrations of First Nations people.

Of course you can always do the same thing but remember you are just as responsible if you stifle the struggles that the oppressed feel.

Natives must rise above all their struggles, but that will not happen if they feel their problems are meet with indifference. We certainly need more than superficial feelings; if anything we first need to allow First Nations' struggles to be voiced no matter how difficult it is to hear such negativity. Then we will surely be on the road to recovery.

Killing the beast

Time to write smack about all the flack that natives, first nations, aboriginals, get: First there is the ongoing saga of Ahenakew, not to mention Pauchay, gangs in Saskatchewan, the FNU and the incompetence that is becoming more and more obvious, where do I start?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1362071 : Pauchay story
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-104710 Gangs in Saskatchewan
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/03/03/8601231-cp.html FNU - Chairman for BOG
So off reserve can now run for the council positions? The federal government wants to bring more revised polices on transparency and accountability on reserves, no less. Hmmm, so are we at the helm of change? Possibly, at least it will all matter if we can figure out things and act sagaciously.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20090303/NATIVES03/national/National INAC –Federal Government
When it comes to Pauchay and Ahenakew, it is all about non-natives once again dictating, the course of justice. Its colonialism all over again, colonialism is, as we all know, essentially about domination. Heck non-natives seem to always want to believe they know more about ourselves then we do. Yet today is pointing to the fact that those affected by whatever, have to be involved in producing solutions. Finally so will our guilt be in the hands of non-natives, surely they would never stand to have their very own lives dictated by another person/group. Yet that is what they want, to tell us how to live and to say what is best for us. Where have heard that before? Some things never change.
Gangs in Saskatchewan, the product of years of dispossession: For people that have been excluded, and dominated and controlled, suddenly they are supposed to act righteously. Every time they (natives) did have success they were often seen as a challenge and a competition. So will the future be any different? Success in a twisted world often worked against us; maybe it was not us who had the pathology in the first place?
FNU – Leadership is only as good as its people. Seems to me getting the people involved is the last thing to be considered yet it should be the first order in governance. If the Chairman is looking for guidance, does that mean there is a lack of knowledge? Or is he looking for a way out; a way from not acting on the recommendations that were given in the first place. The BOG has yet to approach the students, even though this whole fiasco affects them and it is becoming more vital in terms of their education. Is the institution going down due to the inability to act proper and righteously? Good governance is our traditional heritage, yet we cannot put in the traditionally democratic principles that could make us effective, through and through.
Then there is the federal government, justice for one means justice for all; equally, an injustice for one is an injustice to all. How can any government be effective if it is dominated and controlled, yet that is the bottom line when it comes to native communities? Heck this country was supposedly built on Good Governance, yet that means little to our communities. No wonder, our leaders do not know how to act, they have been manipulated, and controlled for more than a hundred years. Now the government wants to shift the blame away from itself, and make it look like native communities suddenly need their help when in fact it is the government who created the system of governance in the first place.
If anything the problems of today reflect the years of domination; clearly it will only be by giving back sovereignty to the First Nations people so that will they begin to recover from the years of abuse. But before you think this is all about total rebellion, let me make one thing clear that until all people come together and put in the right people in the right positions of leadership, then and only then will we actually make head way like we have never made before. The government must be less, and the real strong leaders have to take the helm, and most of all there has to be a time of great patience; because this is about restructuring, if anything
If the political power does not act, which is the people themselves, native people will not see the political power that they need. If the bureaucrats act, which is what the government is trying to do, they will not give the people what they want and desperately need. Thus any move by the government is destined to once again fail. Change has to come from the body, and not from outside domination.