Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2018-02-22, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018. PAGE 5. Other Views Victimisation can be comfortable you could almost hear the whimper in his voice when U.S. President Donald Trump complained recently that Canada wasn't treating his country fairly. I expected to see political cartoonists portraying the President huddling under a desk as big bully Canada threatened him. Trump has managed the near -impossible. One of the world's richest men leading the world's richest country, has turned both himself and his nation into a victim. But then why not? The cloak of victimhood is so comfortable that everybody wants to wear it these days. Victimhood allows us the comfort of wrapping ourselves in self-righteousness while leaving the responsibility of remedying the situation to someone else. Seeing ourselves as victims is an elemental human trait. As children, we think we're treated unfairly by our parents and teachers. As we get older it's our boss, the government or the jerk who cuts us off on the highway who victimize us. And that's just the minor stuff of everyday life. Others suffer real hardship from horrors ranging from sexual assaults to Indigenous residential school abuse and really deserve to be called victims. But there's danger in victimhood when it takes away our sense that we can take action to change our situation. I had huge admiration for former U.S. President Barack Obama for challenging black American men to take responsibility for being fathers. One of the biggest challenges black children face, one that begins early, is that too often they are being raised by single mothers. Their fathers have abandoned their families. Some people blame slavery for this, pointing out that in the days when slave owners wanted to be able to sell their servants, they Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk discouraged close family units. Perhaps this was the seed of the beginning of the problem, but where does it end? It's 150 years since the abolition of slavery. Slavery may remain a complicating factor, but when does the personal responsibility of today's fathers kick in? Obama said it should be now, that men should take responsibility and remain with the families they helped create. In Hollywood, it's been easy to blame the male -dominated studio system for victimizing women. First and foremost, the power that producers like Harvey Weinstein have over the careers of their employees is blamed for the sexual abuse of generations of young female stars. There are complaints that too often female stars are paid less than their male co- stars. Then there's the problem of too few movies telling women's stories and the related issue that there aren't enough women writers and directors given the power to create these stories. Certainly much needs to be done to bring the big studios into the 21st century world of gender equity, but here's a thought: why not studios owned, run and staffed by women? Despite the fact they may earn less than men, there are still hundreds of millionaire female stars. Instead of just complaining and demanding change, why don't they get together to invest in studios where women will call the shots. Some stars like Reese Witherspoon and Nicole Kidman have taken control and are producing movies and television series, but why don't more women pool their talent and resources to either bypass the current male -dominated studios or force them to change? Any fair observer of the situation facing Indigenous people in Canada these days requires solutions that go far beyond the ability of the individual or the community to solve. Even the basic human need of clean water isn't being met on many reserves these days, along with decent housing, education and jobs. Given all this, it's understandable that some people turn to drink, drugs and suicide. To solve the problem these communities must first be brought up to standard, but then given powers to shape their own futures. They must go from victims to self -actualizing people. We here in rural Ontario often see ourselves as victims. It seems our lives are constantly being diminished and we have no control. Our schools are taken away from us. Factories, owned by multinational corporations are closed and moved to more profitable jurisdictions. Services like banks are shuttered by decisionmakers beyond our ability to influence. But at least some of our problems result from a cultural change as we embraced a consumer society in which we think we should be able to sit back and what we need will be provided. That hasn't been our tradition in the past. We needed schools so we came together to build them. We needed the telephone so we started companies to bring the service to our homes. We needed arenas, we built them. We have made ourselves weak and dependant on others. We need to rediscover our strength and take more control of our rural lives. Does gold really change everything? 0 n Friday, Canadian curling fans faced a rough reality: any success the Canadian women's curling team finds may be marred by what some are calling some less -than -sportsmanlike activity. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, Canada's women's team, at the time of writing this, is the only team without a win and the team's behaviour during its loss to a much lower ranked Danish team late last week brought derision not just from other countries, but from Canadians as well. The controversy comes from the "burned rock" rule which governs how a rock hit by a curler's broom is to be dealt with. Any rock "burnt" before the hog line is automatically removed, however once you get past that hog line, it becomes the right of the opposing team to decide what to do. The non -offending team can remove the rock and replace all other rocks that were displaced as a result of the burn, replace all stones where they would have come to rest or leave the stones untouched. I'm no expert curler, but, from what I've read so far, it seems most players would have left the rock where it sat. Rachel Homan and her team, however, seemed to have different feelings on it and removed the rock, resulting in a four -point gain. Emma Miskew, one of Homan's teammates, said at the time of the decision they didn't know what impact removing the rock would have so they felt they absolutely needed to do it. CBC's announcers covering the match didn't agree, calling it a "frustration play" that didn't look good on the team. Later on in the match, Homan also burned a rock, but the rock remained From my research, it seems to be an oft - ignored rule out of sportsmanship. The contact seemed incidental and didn't appear to have an Denny Scott Denny's Den overall impact on the match, however Homan and the Canadian team were well within their right to request it be removed. Twitter, as it often is, was divided by the decision. Many people said they wouldn't have done what Homan and the Canadian squad did while others say that in the Olympics you take every opportunity to win. Many people said we need to support Homan, regardless of whether the move was "aggressive" or followed the "team" or "Olympic" spirit. A lot of non -curlers also asked a question that tumbled through my mind as I read about the entire situation: why have the rule in place if the team can't use it without being ostracized? What's the point in having rules that aren't called into effect based on sportsmanship? Beyond that, what's the point in having a rule that is only exercised by the team and not an official on the ice? I know there are plenty of situations where the team on the field can request a change because one team is breaking some of the lesser rules, but I can't think of a single time when it's created this kind of backlash. This is, however, on the Olympic stage, not in a youth minor sports program. Maybe that makes all the difference. Maybe fighting back from a tough deficit made the move seem a little more palatable. In that moment, in the heat of that competition, Homan and her team were struggling to manage a win after starting the Olympic round-robin with two straight losses. The squad was desperately trying to reverse its fortunes. At that point, there were no guarantees, though they weren't facing elimination just yet. Great Britain, for example, at the last Winter Olympics, finished the round-robin with a 5-4 record and went on to earn a bronze medal. In that moment, facing a losing streak that could erase four years of preparation and an international reputation meaningless, maybe they thought burning a little sportsmanship was worth a chance to come back. Unfortunately for Homan and the rest of her team, the change wasn't enough — Canada lost that match, making a comeback less likely. It's easy for us armchair coaches to comment on the decisions and actions of players and actual coaches alike but, save the exception of a few families in Huron County, none of us know what it's like to have the eyes of the world on us. It's undoubtedly an incomparable pressure to know an entire country is pulling for you and the entire world is scrutinizing everything you do. In that moment, the Canadian women decided that they wanted that rock removed. I don't know that anyone (especially anyone with enough time to sit on Twitter arguing about it) has any right to pass judgement. Sportsmanship or not, I'm still pulling for Homan and her team and you should too. They're going to pull out all the stops to try and get that gold medal and that's the kind of dedication you have to expect from someone who has worked so long and hard to represent their country. Keep at it Team Canada. Shawn Loughlin Shawn's Sense Thoughts and prayers As most of you have no doubt heard by now, it happened again. Someone went into a school with an AR -15 assault rifle and killed a number of people. In this case, at least 17 people were killed and 14 more were injured by the lone gunman, who has been identified as 19 -year-old Nikolas Cruz, a former student. The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, as pointed out by journalist Jeff Greenfield, is the 18th school shooting incident in the United States since Jan. 1. By comparison, Greenfield also pointed out that there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world over the last 20 years. As has become comically predictable (as comical as it gets after a mass shooting, I suppose) U.S. Republican politicians, including President Donald Trump, were quick to offer their thoughts and prayers. These politicians, who all receive campaign funding in the millions from the National Rifle Association (NRA) due to their pro -gun stances, always offer their thoughts and prayers, saying that after such a confusing incident, that's all they can do. As many on various social networks have been quick to point out, the thoughts and prayers of these politicians (sorry to my pastor friends out there) don't seem to be doing anything. However, these citizens are also quick to point out that there actually is something the politicians could be doing beyond thinking and praying about the incident. They are among the few who could be working to enact gun control legislation. If the Republicans were to all vote for gun control, they could affect change and perhaps stop these shootings. Instead they throw up their hands and blame a myriad of factors. Mental health is to blame, they say. It may be the shift of many from religion is another working theory, along with illegally -obtained guns and classics like video games, movies and music like heavy metal or rap. After the shooting, The Onion, a satirical "news" website ran a headline saying "`No way to prevent this,' says only nation where this regularly happens." Satirical, yes. Accurate? Also, yes. In this globalized economy, every other country in the world, save a few, has what the U.S. has. They have citizens with mental health problems. They have religion (and people leaving it for various reasons) and they have video games, movies and music. However, these shootings aren't happening at this rate anywhere but the United States. So, what does the United States have that other countries don't? Guns. Lots and lots of guns. In fact, according to data from 2007, the United States is said to have 101 guns per 100 residents. That's right, just a hair over one gun per person. When compared to other countries, it's not even close. There's Serbia at 58.21 in second place followed by other developing nations with small populations like Yemen, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. You have to get to Norway, France and Canada to get into the range of 30-31 guns per 100 residents. This obsession with guns makes me sick, as does the rhetoric that comes in the wake of these shootings that declares more guns as the solution to the problem. Had every teacher in that school had a gun, we'll hear, this incident never would have happened. Until politicians no longer have a monetary reason to vote for guns, these shootings will continue and the blood of the victims is on all of those representatives' hands, no matter how much thinking and praying they do.