Re: “By what right? The confrontation at Wedzin Kwah,” comment, Jan. 9.
With all due respect to the authors, John Price and Nicholas Claxton, it behooves both of these learned gentlemen to lift themselves out of what appears to be an academic vacuum and provide readers with a more balanced commentary regarding the current dilemma over the LNG pipeline issue.
It’s one thing to regurgitate the historical antecedents as to Indigenous land ownership and management and allegations as to treatment by governments. However, Canada has evolved into a productive entity that has provided a way of life for its citizens that is, in many respects, the envy of the world.
It is abundantly clear that Price and Claxton, along with the hereditary chiefs who, as a minority group operating as undemocratically constituted entities that oppose the pipeline, compared with the elected band councils that are on-board with its construction, should be the ones to “get with the program.”
They should be part of the solution in preserving our nation’s future by supporting its economic development, instead of staging disruptive protests or writing divisive claptrap rooted not only in the past, but within the ivory tower of academia, that does nothing to advance the discussion in a positive or meaningful way in the real world.
What perhaps is just as concerning is how this type of negativity plays out in the learning process for students to develop their critical-thinking abilities. It’s a question of balance and, in this regard, neither Price nor Claxton seem to have gotten it right.