Observations From Just Outside the Pandemic #2

There are some of us for whom a five-minute conversation with a neighbour meets all our social requirements for a week. There are those of us who are quite content to spend a lot of time alone. I have said for years that a good week for me is when I do not have to go out or talk to anyone. Some of us have to schedule activities in the community to combat our tendency to monk-dom. We are not all born to be social creatures.

But many (perhaps even most) people are social creatures. This semi-voluntary social isolation must be a terrible strain upon those folks. To not be able to mingle and chat, to not be able to play or to hug friends, to not be able to just be where there are other people are must be almost unbearable.

There are numerous postings on Facebook about how wonderful this slowdown in the economy is for the environment. Just this morning I read that deer are wandering the streets of the cities of Japan, that dolphins are playing in the ocean just off the beaches of Italy and that the water in the canals of Venice is clear. Last week there was a lot of buzz about how China's carbon emissions were down by 25% because of the shutdown of factories. There is talk about that the COVID -19 virus is Mother Nature's way of making us slow down so the planet can heal. There is a general sense amongst some posters to social media that this is the new way of doing things - people will consume less, they will work out of their own homes, as well engaging less in the broader community and certainly travelling less.

However, social isolation is not the way to resolve the world's environmental problems. It may solve a short term problem in terms of pollution, but making/allowing people to separate from each other will only increase the sense of isolation that so many people fear. If we do not stay intimately connected with each other's lives we are doomed as a species. To not be able to share or to interact with our neighbours, our friends or our co-workers will destroy the one thing that has allowed us to survive.

Humans do not create anything alone. Everyone, whether it be artists such as Tom Thomson or Picasso, inventers such as Edison or Elon Musk or social innovators such as Marx or Tommy Douglas have all used the work of others and the social interactions of their own lives to create what they have created. If someone does invent/discover a cure to the COVID-19 virus - it will because that person was part of a team that used the work of other researchers. Socially isolating ourselves is necessary at this particular point in time because it is the easiest way to stop the virus from consuming all of our medical resources, but it is not the panacea for all of our environmental issues.

Children need to go to school- not just to learn academic stuff that may be useful but also to learn how to relate to others, how to explore and then understand what they have found. If it takes a community to raise a child - on-line learning and the internet, in general, is a very poor substitute. Yes, there are some jobs that can be done at home - but without the collegial interactions, without the peer support how can an individual maintain any sense of collective purpose.  People need to share, to be intimate with each other, to just be with other people.

As this pandemic and the consequences of it continue to unfold - we need to continue to be human - and that means being connected to each other.

Observations From Just Outside of the Pandemic

Waiting for the pandemic to come to my town sort of feels as if I am standing on the train tracks - knowing that a train is coming and that if I do not stay out of the way - it might hit me. If the pandemic is like a VIA train - I do not have the foggiest notion when it will arrive. But we all know that more people will get sick before the CONVID-19 virus has run its course. In the meantime, I will do what I can to limit my exposure while still maintaining some sort of life. It is interesting to observe other people make adjustments to their routines.

I had to get a blood test done earlier this week. The receptionist was wearing a full, clear plastic mask - acting as if nothing was unusual about her appearance. The mask was rather hard to ignore. She asked me if I had visited any countries where people were sick and when I said no - she asked me if I had been around anyone who had visited any countries where people were sick. Again I said no. I was struck by the fact that despite the seriousness of the pandemic - that at this point people were prepared to trust each other and assume that we were all being honest. I am not sure if that is true in all countries, or how long it will remain true in Canada if more and more people get sick.

It is sometimes hard to trust people when one reads about the couple who cleaned out the shelves at their local Costco store of disinfectant wipes - they bought two pallet loads so they could sell them on eBay for a huge profit. They, according to the news item, were proud of themselves for seizing the opportunity to take advantage of people's fears.  One would have hoped that the Costco staff would have said something. But then apparently, people are allowed to walk out of various stores with more hand soap or toilet paper than a family could use in a year with no one saying anything.

A day or so after my blood work, I had a doctor's appointment. The reception staff are always behind glass so they did not feel the need to wear a mask. No one asked me anything. On Wednesday I had an appointment at the neurologist - no masks and no glass barriers between the reception on the public - but I did notice that in both the waiting rooms, all of the magazines had been removed. The neurologist was a good doctor and I appreciated the information he gave and the way he answered my questions. I think in other times we would have shaken hands as I left- we didn't do it this time.

I have noticed that the US media uses " coronavirus" to discuss issues and concerns whereas the Canadian press seems to prefer COVID-19. I wonder why?

I am amazed at how fast various events have been cancelled. On Vancouver Island where there is (I

 It is difficult to know how people are adapting. There certainly were fewer people at Habitat's ReStore on Friday and the Saturday Duncan Farmer's Market looked rather empty (it was also bloody cold) but the Supercenter was so crowded that I decided not to bother shopping. I suspect that people will be cautious and practice some form of social distancing. Many will do so because some if not most of their activities have been cancelled. think) only one reported case, all events have been cancelled. Which would suggest that either people are over-reacting or that people are determined to mitigate the spread of the virus? Schools are on a scheduled two-week spring break so there is another week or so before a decision needs to be made.

I have a bit of a runny nose and my throat might be a bit scratchy. Is that train getting closer or do I just have a bit of a cold?

Reconciliation - Using our Words Correctly - Part Two

If there was ever going to be a Canadian word of the decade - reconciliation would be most likely be it.    Unfortunately, despite it being an important word, by the time we reach 2030 - many of us will be so very tired of hearing the word. We will be tired of it because it is being so badly misused.

Reconciliation is a process. Reconciliation does not mean that we have to change the name of every public building from the name of a historical figure who was racist ( so many if not all were racists and sexist) to a name in an Indigenous language. Taking down the statues of every politician of the last 140 years will not do what is needed to achieve reconciliation. Chanting the word reconciliation a thousand times will not cause change. Repeating it like some sort of mantra - applying it to every situation will not do a single thing to address the issues that so desperately need to be addressed. Using the word like a hammer on such topics as boil water advisories, inadequate housing and the lack of accessible education or medical care will not produce any resolution. Discovering that some civil servant or bank manager had made a decision that may have been based on race - is not proof that reconciliation is dead. Furthermore, passing laws based on what the United Nations says about Indigenous rights will not mean that all of the issues are resolved.

I suspect that saying to Indigenous people in Canada that any sort of true reconciliation is going to take time will cause many to say that they have been waiting for centuries - why should they have to wait any longer? And that is a fair point. Canada as a nation and individual Canadians have for far too long, made decisions based on race. The question is how do we stop doing that?

It would seem to me that people need to change how they think about people who are different than them. We need to eradicate the bias that has existed since the arrival of the Europeans, those Eurocentric assumptions that have allowed us to mistreat, abuse or ignore Indigenous people. Those biases are deeply ingrained into some peoples' thinking. That thinking is not going to change just because someone says it should.

I believe that people change their attitudes or beliefs when they are convinced it is the best thing to do. For example, I, along with all other drivers in North America, drive on the right side of the road. Yes, it is the law and I do not want to get a ticket, but many of us break laws every day. We all drive on the right side of the road because we have been convinced that doing so is better for us. After all, it is safer. Those of us who have supported LGBTQ, rights, feminism or the acceptance of individuals with disabilities have done so because we knew others who were engaged in those struggles and what they said made sense to us. It made sense for the world we wanted to live in.

If reconciliation is to ever actually happen, we as individuals need to make individual changes. Little things such as being careful of how we use words, how we include everyone into the conversation or reading, no matter how difficult it is, about the issues from a different perspective. Reconciliation will not happen because someone says we have to accept it. Reconciliation is about changing the hearts and minds of a nation. And that will take time.

Racism - Using our Words Correctly

The school board in Prince George, B.C. has decided to change the name of their new school from a simple name that appears to reflect the street that it is on, to an Indigenous name. I suspect that the decision was made in the spirit of reconciliation (more on that in the next blog). Some people are, of course, pleased with the name change. Other people are less than pleased. While I have not read any of the comments that have been posted - the media and public leaders have labelled some of those comments as racist. To be clear - there can never, ever be any occasion when making a racist statement is okay.  In our society, we should not be having this conversation. We should all know in our bones that racist comments are hurtful, unfair and just plain wrong. We should also learn to use the English language correctly.

A  person just stating the belief that they do not want a name to be changed because the present name has some significance to them or that it reflects who they are and their experiences ( their culture) - is not a racist statement. Racism is defined as "having the belief that some races of people are better than others; showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races"  (https://www.oxford learnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/racist_1?q=racist). Saying "I like the old name because I went to that school and my kids now go to that school and therefore the name means something to me" is not a racist statement.

An individual is allowed to express an opinion about what is important to them. That in itself does not make the opinion right - it is just an opinion. Sometimes those opinions are different than someone else's. We need to be able to express our thoughts, not in terms of saying someone else's thoughts are wrong because of who or what they are, but because that is how we feel. When we feel that people are open to how we feel, we are encouraged to be open to their feelings. However, when we characterize other people's comments with such inflammatory labels as racist or sexist - we stop the debate. The person is either shamed into silence or gets angry, but there is no defence to such a label. One cannot prove a negative.

I have no doubt that some, perhaps even many of the comments being made in Prince George are racist. We should all be embarrassed and ashamed of those people - and angry at them. But I also am sure that there are many people in Prince George who liked the old name for that school and felt pride in it. By denying them the right to articulate that pride - we deny them the right to participate in any discussion of how to right the wrongs of the past. Unfortunately, I think when we also push people away from a reasonable dialogue, all too often inappropriate labelling can polarize people, pushing down pathways they could never have found on their own.

We are all responsible for ensuring that we use our words correctly We need to start being aware of the dangers of using polarizing words that will separate people from each other. If those who talk about correcting the wrongs of the past are sincere -we need to be so very careful that we do not leave people behind in that process. If we are ever going to achieve any sort of reconciliation then we need to include everyone in the process.

  

Shaming someone is never an invitation to belong.

Who Owns, Controls, Pays for the Airways?

For the past nine days, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has held hearings to gather information before it decides whether or not it should force the prime providers of cell phone services to sell to smaller companies access to their networks. If the smaller companies could gain access to those networks, they suggest that they could provide more cellular coverage at a potentially lower cost to the consumer. On the surface, such a policy would make sense. After all - who doesn't like the thought of more competition if it means that our costs will decrease? Except, why is our government thinking about sticking its nose into this particular business?

I am not a fan of the capitalistic system. I believe it is a destructive force that feeds off of the labour of those under it. The capitalist urge to make more and more money, to control more and more people and resources can only bring the world to the verge of collapse. It is not a sustainable system. But for the foreseeable future, it is the economic system we are stuck with. The question is - should governments manipulate that system to give some companies advantages over others, or should they just let the system be until it sinks under its own weight?

The smaller providers of cell phone services argue that the large companies (i.e. Telus, Rogers, Bell) have an unfair advantage because Telus, Rogers, Bell get to use the cell towers that they built. The smaller companies want access to those towers without investing capital in the construction of such a network. It is not surprising that they can charge less for access - they have not paid for the cost of creating the infrastructure. Telus, Rogers, Bell in various ways have suggested to the CRTC that if their investors cannot get back their "deserved" profits from their money - future investments (i.e. jobs) in the infrastructure may not be as forthcoming.

The "need' for everyone to have affordable and effective cell phone coverage is a need that was created by the capitalist. Many Canadians survived quite nicely for most of their lives without needing to carry a phone in their pockets. It is only within the last 10-15 years that we have discovered that humankind cannot exist without these devices. It should be noted that cell phone coverage is reasonably cheap - it is our constant need to Google everything, to post the most mundane of thoughts on social media and our compulsion to text everything to everyone that is costing us so much money.

It would seem to me that if everyone has the right to have a cell phone and have good coverage - perhaps the Canadian government should nationalize the whole thing and make it available at a far more reasonable cost. Either that, or we stop being so habituated to using the silly things. In the meantime, the Canadian government needs to decide whether or not it wants to control the economy or let the capitalist do it.