A Unique Puzzle Piece That Still Fits In

Fear by In-Flight Safety

*Special author note: I have really struggled in trying to articulate my thoughts on this subject. Please don't judge me too harshly for I am admittedly still trying to understand and find my place and see how I fit in.


Fear. 

We all experience fear in some form or another. Fear of dying. Fear of spiders. Fear of heights. Fear of commitment. And to me one of the most paralyzing of fears - the fear of judgement.

Nobody wants to be judged on things that cannot be changed or shouldn't be changed particularly if we want to preserve the integrity of self. Judgement is inherently negative because it is typically a comparison against ourselves. We certainly don't want to make ourselves look bad so we demean another to "raise" our profile. That is the problem with judgement.

Starting with our first breath the labeling process begins. Girl/boy. Quickly followed by a religious and cultural distinction, and the comments concerning our skin colour. And we will generally keep those labels all our life. It seems that the most defining labels are the ones that make us unique within our community. First and foremost for all seems to be the sexual orientation. However using myself as an example I am a white female - and you can't tell much more beyond that without speaking to me. Indeed, I present myself with the intention of celebrating my gender. But even that line has blurred somewhat particularly with the advent of jeans as popular clothing for both sexes. 

If people wear specific items on their person do they want to be identified by that label? We often wear uniforms at work intentionally so that we can be quickly labelled as an employee. There are also uniforms for sports, hobbies, interests and groups. Wedding rings group us into very specific categories as well. If I wear a Nickelback t-shirt I am advertising myself as a fan of that band and I wear it proudly. That pride negates any negative comments that may be hurled my way. 

So how about embracing our differences and being proud of them. Will that help people feel more included? You are a part of the whole because you are different but like a puzzle piece you still fit in. 

We're All In This Together - Sam Roberts Band

In North America (I can only speak to what I know) we seem to want to make a distinction about people based on their skin colour. There is a notion that dark-skinned people are a minority and therefore are treated as less equal. No doubt of this figuring prominently in the past of the whole of the Americas and persisting in some forms to this day. I wonder if in a country that is predominately black skinned whether the tables are turned on the fairer skinned? But I digress, the point is that I'm not so sure that making a distinction is abnormal behaviour. Labels aren't the problem...negative judgement is, perpetuating the stereo-types that are thrust upon us via the media and our social circles is a problem. And although colour is the primary focus here, negative judgement hits us all in some way. The weaker sex, the differently-abled, the blondes, the fat, the skinny, the Catholics, the Muslims. It doesn't end. No one is immune it seems.

There is nothing wrong with identifying someone as a young, black female as long as we don't presume at the same time that said female is also an unwed mother with no clue who her baby daddy is. I guarantee that there is no shortage of young, white females in the exact same predicament. Does the same negative stereotype cloud your vision? That is what we have to change. And in my opinion a lot of that negativity comes from the media that manipulates much of what we see and hear about the world outside our own neighbourhood.

When a child or dementia patient goes missing I think that skin colour can help in the locating of an individual. In the same way that clothing, hair colour and size is a useful tool so would knowing if the person wore a turban or relied on a scooter/wheelchair for transportation. The more details I have the better the chance I have of identifying that person and finding them. We have to stop believing the hype and stop spreading the negativity. We need to look at the reality. We need tolerance. We need acceptance. 

The Academy Awards were held the other night and although not much of a fan of awards show - boredom found me watching this one. I also like Neil Patrick Harris and was curious as to how he would handle his hosting role. Although John Travolta's bizarre behaviour continues to be the trending topic, I want to focus on NPH's comment early in the broadcast welcoming the audience to "Hollywood's best and whitest..I mean brightest." I don't know what the ratio is of black to white actors and personnel in the movie business but maybe that is the cause of the lack of colour. I personally think it has more to do with the black story, how about just a movie that happens to feature a diversity in casting. Not about slavery, not about oppression but about life, about success, about the human condition. And to tell these stories maybe we need to see more people of colour as producers. Couldn't hurt, for one white male who produces films retelling the black story, says that he tells the stories in a way that he thinks white audiences will want to hear/see them. That is not necessarily the reality of the story - but the commercially acceptable one. The money making story? That's not okay.

The fact of the matter is that only studio released movies are eligible for Oscar nominations and there are small fortunes spent by the moguls lobbying for votes for their interests to win. It doesn't make the winner the best movie/actor/actress but the team that is the richest and cagiest. 

Just recently I heard a conversation whereby the speaker suggested that one way the colour barrier in the media could be changed would be to have a black man play the role of Superman. Nothing wrong with that really I suppose but I'm not sure that would solve anything. In terms of talent, there is no doubt that colour has no bearing on the ability to conquer a role but does that make it the right thing to do. My go to is - does it work both ways. Can a pale actor play Martin Luther King? Why would we want that? Why not be true to the character or person? There is a difference between black and white and it is something that should be embraced and not necessarily assimilated. Why not make a whole new story where the role could be played by the best actor not the best black or the best white actor. Or maybe we can stop putting so much credence on the Academy Awards as the be all end all source for what we think is good at the movies. 

I would like to see equality in the media and I am seeing some change. Morgan Freeman successfully portrayed the traditional white figure of God in Bruce Almighty. On the other hand one of the screenwriters of the recently remade film Noah, said that an all white cast was used as a representation of mankind because having people of colour might be distracting to the audience and take away from the telling of the story. I am not thinking about the US fed television/movie fare but our own Canadian newscasts. When prominent names in the industry come to mind, I don't see their colour or even gender I hear their voice and their sincerity. It's a step in the right direction.

Label yes. 
Judgement no.

Practice kindness. 
Act love.

credit
Academy Awards - Neil Patrick Harris
http://www.billboard.com/articles/events/oscars/6480217/oscars-neil-patrick-harris-monologue-watch
New Republic: Why Selma Didn't Win an Oscar
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121113/selma-oscar-snub-why-film-wont-win-best-picture
Noah had no actors of colour
http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/co-screenwriter-of-noah-explains-why-there-are-no-black-people-or-poc-in-the-film

Trolling for people! (or Shooting Fish in A Barrel)

Peace on Earth - U2

Another mass shooting in the United States this past week (on Friday December 14, 2012). And I am going to say it again, I don't want to celebrate the name of the shooter and have their name at the forefront of my memory. I am annoyed at myself for remembering Marc Lepine, Paul Bernardo, Ted Bundy etc but I am hard pressed to recall the victims so quickly. That's sad. 

But it is the first thing that comes out in a news story as traumatic as this. We want to know who and why. It seems to me that the perpetrator of these heinous acts seem to take the cowardly route and turn the gun on themselves before society can mete out justice. Among the bodies strewn about the location, the gunman is easily identified with weapons nearby and bullets on the person. The name is released to the media quickly. And then it is repeated over and over again. I will not fall into that frenzy again. The names of 26 victims may be a lot to recall, but I will celebrate their life and mourn their loss and their families sorrow without the attachment of the name (or mental picture of) the one who mowed them down.

And so within moments of the news leaking to the world that a gunman with an assault rifle entered the Sandy Hook elementary school in the picturesque community of Newton, Connecticut, USA and opened fire. From hallway to classroom he sprayed more than 100 bullets and 26 found their mark and claimed a life. Sadly according to some reports, after being shot from a distance the killing became up close and personal and some children were shot up to 11 times. This isn't random, to me it is a personal vendetta that he carried out - but for what reason we may only ever be able to speculate about. Maybe it doesn't really matter why? 20 children never got to give their families one last kiss, 6 adults never got to say good bye to their loved ones. 

But wait, their were two more victims. The gunman and his mother. I understand not wanting to lump the murderer in with the death toll he caused but why is his mother left out? Is it because it was her weapons that were used. Ah yes, it seems that Mom had an arsenal of hand guns and rifles and enjoyed taking her children out for a family outing of target practice. Bizarre behaviour in my mind but I live in a nation that has different outlooks on gun ownership. And this is where I am going with this.


There is no need for your average Joe Citizen to own an assault rifle or automatic weapon of any type. Certainly I think it is time that the parameters of who, how many and what types of guns should be allowed in a household in the United States. NRA be damned. The death toll would not have been so high with a single shot weapon. If there were no weapons ready for the taking in the home, the gun man may have released some of his rage before acting on it. We know that we can get our hands on a weapon if we are really intent on it, but with the time it takes to get it, our murderous rage may be calmed somewhat. But if your second amendment right to bear arms supersedes my right to life then at least please take the deadly velocity out of the equation.  

I equate hunting game with a rifle or shotgun in the same vein as fishing with a lure or live bait. One animal or fish is captured. No excessive killing. Then there is the semi-automatic or automatic weapon that has the capability to mow down an entire herd of animals in moments. Like the fishing net that captures everything in its path with no chance of survival. It is no longer a sport or survival. It is business with a devastating impact, socially or environmentally.  

Melt the Guns - XTC

Bottom line, I suppose is that a mass killing can and does happen regardless of the weapon involved. Case in point, the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City (168 people dead, many injured), the commercial airliners into the World Trade Center (2,753 dead), Jonestown massacre by poisoning (909 dead). While the number of victims here may be greater, these attacks against humanity where planned out events that took considerable time and preparation. Comparatively, Sandy Hook elementary school had fewer casualties, but an interesting analogy was brought up concerning another elementary school being targeted on the other side of our planet. In China a man with an unknown vendetta against school age children went on a spree that left 23 victims in his wake. The difference being that his weapon was a knife and there was not one fatality! The man was subdued by witnesses. I too, would risk a stab wound over a barrage of bullets to attempt to stop an attacker in his tracks. A no-brainer really. You would expend very little personal energy squeezing a trigger than you would pounding a knife through flesh and bone.  

                                                                        

But this tragedy is really not just about the argument for or against gun ownership. It is about mental illness as well. For I think it is safe to say that someone who flies into a murderous rage and takes a weapon to slaughter countless innocent people before himself is not quite right in the head. Whether it is a means to an end in seeking revenge and final retribution for wrongs that have been committed against the attacker, or some perverse ideal of achieving infamy and notoriety for all the days after our life - the thinking process is skewed. 

Considering this picture, it is true that the steps are harder to climb than it is to walk into the visually attracting gun store, but sometimes we have to swallow some of our own pride to reach out and climb those stairs. It is not an easy thing for people to go against societal expectations and admit that we are weak and incapable of handling life and need help. And often times we don't know ourselves that we need help and can't cope on our own. But that doesn't mean that it is society's fault if we don't recognize that need. Some people go to the doctor for a small ache or pain and practice preventative care, some people are riddled with cancer before they know something is not right. The same can and does hold true for mental illness. We don't necessarily know that the way we view the world is skewed, our neighbours and society tell us that problems are solved with guns. Movies and media preach the notoriety garnered by revenge. It's what we learn and know. Restriction of access to guns will not stop mass violence against humanity but it might make it harder. What the US is doing now sure isn't working! 

I'm familiar with the mental health system in Canada. Unless you are in crisis (ready to snap) there are simply not enough professional to care for the growing number of people who are having difficulty coping with society's expectations. And of course there are always abuses to the system that makes it harder for those in real need. For every little misbehaviour it seems that parents are running to look for a diagnosis to be used as an excuse for what is nothing more than lack of effective parenting. And where there is a real problem with a dysfunctional teen, parents are often oblivious because of the demands that are placed on them from family and work obligations. 

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that someone had to recognize when I was in crisis and take steps to remedy it because I wasn't climbing those stairs to shout it out for the world to hear.  

If someone has it in their head that they are going out with a bang, banning gun ownership is not going to stop them. We can't outlaw knife ownership, and certainly vehicles have been used to intentionally kill the innocent. We can't ban cars. Most schools are locked to the public, but there will always be the crack that someone slips through. Tragedy on a grand scale can happen at a school, business, shopping venue or public transit. We can't prevent it all but we have to try and make it harder to do the deed and help the ones we can. That is all



Final note: Morgan Freeman has had some words to share about this topic and it isn't difficult to find the associated commentary shared all over social media sites.  I would like to share that according to snopes.com, Morgan Freeman never made the comments attributed to him. But I did! The synopsis of his first paragraph is found in my musings from October 2012 entitled You Don't Have to Win the Race to Succeed! This is the link. http://pinkpantherfancanada.blogspot.ca/2012/10/you-dont-have-to-win-race-to-succeed_9.html

Final Final note: There was a lot of commentary about this subject posted on the internet and on social media and much centered around the unprovoked attack, gun ownership and mental illness. But there was one comment that was different and stopped me in my tracks to re-read it several times. While expressing great sorrow and compassion for the victims and families in Connecticut, there was a resentment that hundreds of children have been massacred at the hands of the US Drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. On one hand the American people are expected to be grief stricken by the senseless actions of a madman while at the same time be supportive of the government and people who continue to kill children and innocent people off their shores filling an agenda that is possibly just as insane. But permissible and not questioned in the name of war. Hmmmm?

Credit where credit is due:
snopes.com
pinkpantherfancanada.blogspot.ca