Something on my Mind: Reverse Racism (1)

You may have read recently about a school division in British Columbia, denouncing the "sin" of white privilege. Besides the school division, I don't know who else was behind this most recent attack and how sincere they are, but it really shocked me.

I assume my "friends" in the Gold Trail School Division didn't read my earlier column on this topic, so let's hope they read this one and get some helpful hints.

They plastered posters all over the division denouncing racism—but with white privilege being the sole target. That would be denouncing racism while racially attacking another race. It has become one of the greatest ironies of the age, namely, a loud hue and cry against racism by people protesting in a racist way. Go figure.

According to the above references, as a white person I am supposed to be embarrassed and ashamed of my skin colour, and I need to be shunned, or at least stopped. Well, okay, maybe they didn't put it that way, but that was their drift.

Needless to say, I am deeply disturbed by the on-going regurgitation of religious, ideological, black, and indigenous supremacy that is sweeping North America these days. As we are here in Canada, I need to narrow the field to issues here in Canada.

I'm all for equality and always have been. But this nonsense is getting out of control. It has the same target: us white guys.

It comes in the form of tearing down statues, re-writing history books, posters cluttering everything that stands upright (boy, I could see a very clever wordplay there), creating college courses that ban whites from attending...and I'm just getting started.

If the roles were reversed, whereby white replaced "people of colour," the hullabaloo would be deafening. Beyond deafening, in fact. That's where the term "reverse racism" comes into play.

In other words, isn't racism still racism, no matter which way it's pointing? Thought so.

I need to hem in my comments, so I'll just deal with the indigenous issues here in Canada. Let me try to take the wind out of this latest attack, but from a human perspective:

1. I have never endorsed or embraced racism in any way, shape or form, nor have I ever used any term in describing any person of colour in a derogatory way, that I can recall. My friendships (classmate and colleagues) run the spectrum of every colour, creed, and culture.

So am I still a racist? If it's a matter of skin colour, isn't that prejudice, in and of itself?

2. While I have never been an employer, per se, I would never discriminate against anyone of colour. As an employer, I would not hire or fire on the basis of skin colour. That's morally and economically wrong. We must be careful not to tar all white employers with the same brush.

Rather, the chief criteria for any employment is simple: Is he or she the best qualified man or woman for the job? Period. That question has been lost in this whole approach to employment, education, and economics.

This loopy idea of a quota, whereby politics, trades, and professions must be representative of the national racial mix at large is absolute bunk. That's racism in itself.

3. Why should I accept the blame for something that happened many generations ago, and did not involve my race? There are horror stories coming from the other side of this discussion, but no one ever brings them up.

4. I love accurate history and I trust you do, too. If so, you will be aware of the warfare of Indian nation against Indian nation. Not a pretty story, and still isn't. Funny, how our revisionist history books fail to mention that.

5. Why stop at skin colour? Where are these heroines of change for the Gold Trail School Division when it comes to the treatment of the Japanese in our internment camps? And while we're at it, what about the Ukrainians and Chinese a few decades before? Strangely silent, I see.

I think it is admirable to raise awareness of the needs of people of colour. Just don't forget that white is a colour, too, and by gratuitously stomping on the rights of white people, well, it creates a much greater, broader mess that we all need to solve.

More on this next week.

Something on my Mind: Gun Control, Florida-style (3)

I am in the middle of asking four (4) questions about the weakness of the gun control argument. I believe I have made it clear that something must be done, but a knee-jerk reaction is out of order. The issue is too serious to think that a simple law here or finger-pointing there will solve anything. Rather, they would make matters worse.

You may have other questions. If nothing else, these can at least stimulate a rational discussion, something that's sadly lacking.

Here are the other two:

3. Is the government to blame for this mess?

I suppose I am consistent here with my anti-socialist principles, namely, "is the government be responsible for everything in our lives?" We have handed over far too much power and control as it is. The Government certainly doesn't need more.

I have not yet made the connection between what happened in Florida (and elsewhere) and the government. I've even read where President Trump has been held responsible for the shooting. Really? That's how far this socialistic mindset has poisoned our culture.

Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility? We can't continue to play this "blame game." Whenever anything goes wrong, we blame others. We refuse to take responsibility for ourselves.

We blame our parents, teachers, neighbours, employers, and the church. We throw in the excuse of gender, race, ethnicity, finances, and even the devil. Blaming the government, then, is a mere extension of that faulty thinking.

4. Is there any connection between a well-armed populace and the crime rate?

My research is a little inconclusive at this point, so I won't go too far out on a limb. Logically speaking, of course, if any given homeowner, consumer, or student is known to have a concealed weapon, that should be deterrent for any vandal, burglar or mugger to do some serious damage.

I have read so many accounts where the homeowner has simply defended his "castle" by shooting over (or at) the perp, sending him on his way, with a parting shot (pun intended).. I have read other accounts where the homeowner wasn't armed and the results were tragic.

And we don't want anymore tragedies, do we?

So, in that sense, we don't need stats to show the benefits of being an armed homeowner—we need just police reports.

Even as I write there is an ongoing situation in Okotoks, whereby a rancher shot at a couple of thieves on his his property. There was a similar account a few years ago in Taber. They both could have ended up much differently, with some blood being spilled unnecessarily—and I mean the innocent property owner's blood.

As I windup this discussion, I certainly hope you will agree with the following points: a. this indiscriminate bloodbath needs to stop...now; b. all innocent lives must be protected;     c. weapons must not fall into irresponsible hands; and

  d. every hint, notice, joke, even rumour of killing must be taken seriously and responded to immediately.

I circle back to something I mentioned a couple of columns ago: With the breakdown of the nuclear family comes the breakdown of society. There is a direct correlation between messed-up families and messed-up kids. Add a gun to the mix and you have what we are experiencing today. Greater support for and accountability of parents and children is a massive step in the right direction.

Nikolas Cruz is a poster child for this very problem. He fell through the cracks at every turn of the way, even though many knew he was a very, very troubled youth—yet the appropriate authorities did nothing about it.

What we now need is a poster child for the answer. Well , come to think of it, a lot of hunters, ranchers, and regular, common sense people come to mind.

Something on my Mind: Gun Control, Florida-style (2)

While it's still fresh in our minds, I'll add a few more comments to the Florida school shooting in particular, and gun control in general.

I can't imagine anything more horrific than being pinned down anywhere (eg., school, mall, indoor or outdoor auditorium), and listening to the sounds of death—the screams of the victims and the footsteps of the villain, as they get louder and closer.

My thoughts and prayers go out to each victim of this most recent tragedy, as well as the many others that we have heard about in these past few years.

I can't forget the other victims, too, those that were injured but not killed, as well as the parents, loved ones, and friends. And we can't forget the staff and students who were in the school but made it out alive. We all saw them on national television with their hands on top of their heads, being escorted out to safety.

I know I have dealt with some of this in my previous column, but I feel the need to expand on it while it's still fresh—and while the rant of "gun control" is still echoing on late night talk shows, television interviews, newspaper articles, and water coolers everywhere.

It's clear something must be done, but gun control is not the answer.

My basic premise is that we can have all the gun laws we want, but the mass shootings would still happen. It is desperately naive and irresponsible to think that more gun laws would create a safer world.

There is no question that if the bad guys had their guns taken away we would have a better world. That's a no-brainer. But the world doesn't work that way, and the bad guys won't turn in their guns, so so we need to come up with a more rational approach.

Quite frankly, I don't have a concrete solution, though I suggest bringing family into the mix would be a key factor. I trust you agree that something must be done, but disarming law-abiding citizens, so they become defenceless targets, will solve nothing. In fact, it would make the matters worse.

Also, we need to come up with a factual response to the hysteria that always follows these tragedies. I will start with asking a few questions (two this week and two next week):

1. Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

Don't forget that a gun is a mere tool in the hand of a deranged man or a woman. Take the gun out of their hand, and the problem is diminished, but not gone. Getting the root cause for the anger and evil in the shooter, before the shooting, is a step in the right direction.

So I suggest we have a people problem, not a gun problem. And that's where we start.

There is no question that guns kill people, but they never do it on their own. Guns or rifles must be engaged by people, and that is what needs to come under this scrutiny. Really, really messed up people, combined with guns or rifles, create serious havoc.

Law-abiding citizens, hunters, and such, should not have their protection and recreation taken away because of a few wackos.

2. What weapon is used the most to kill people?

Guns and rifles, right? Wrong, by a long shot. Our focus these days is on guns and rifles, but we tend to overlook another weapon that actually kills more people: knives. They are used to kill more people than guns—in fact, it's not even close: According to my most recent statistics, three to four times as many people were killed by stabbing than shooting last year alone.

So using the gun-control advocates' logic, shouldn't there be a knife-control law while we're at it? What about drunk drivers that kill people, or even road rage: Should we ban cars, too?

I'm not trivializing this whole discussion, believe me. It's quite the opposite: It's just that we can't just collapse into a reactionary hysterical heap; we need to think things through.

To be continued next week.