Are Some Christmas Carols a Bad Influence?

Disclaimer: This blog post is a decidedly tongue-in-cheek look at traditional Christmas carol lyrics. I’m not being serious; I’m merely pointing out a few lyrical details that I find ironic or amusing. Therefore, if you’re a wannabe Social Justice Warrior, please don’t try to claim this as your latest cause, or make any effort to “cancel” these Christmas carols.

---

.

Do some Christmas carols contain examples of poor behaviour? I’m not talking about the modern and somewhat sultry Santa Baby, or I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus – I’m referring to the traditional carols you sang as a child. After a closer inspection of the lyrics, I discovered that some of the songs that filled your heart with joy each December depicted behaviour that would definitely put people on Santa’s naughty list!

The Christmas Song

The first example is The Christmas Song, more commonly known as Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire, offers the following heartfelt best wishes:

“And so I’m offering this simple phrase, to kids from one to ninety-two,
Although it’s been said many times, many ways, Merry Christmas to you.“

It’s a lovely sentiment, but what about those folks who are 93 and older? Don’t they also deserve a merry Christmas? People of that age are more likely to be widows and widowers, living out their final years without companionship. They may be languishing in a nursing home. Surely they, of all people, deserve some happiness and shouldn’t feel expressly excluded when listening to Christmas carols.

To be fair, The Christmas Song was written in 1945, and back then, people didn’t live quite as long as they do today. In 1945, the average life expectancy in the United States was 64.7 years, so 92 was a reasonable age for its time. Unlike us, it simply didn’t age well over the decades (irony unintended).

.

We Wish You a Merry Christmas

On the surface, this sounds like a delightful seasonal tune, full of good cheers and fond wishes “Good tidings we bring, to you and your kin“. However, that’s just the first verse. Dig a little deeper, and the tone becomes decidedly self-entitled and rude…

Verse 2: “Oh, bring us some figgy pudding, and bring it right here.“
Verse 3: “We won’t go until we get some, so bring it right here.“

Not only are the singers demanding some food, but they won’t even lift a finger to get it – they insist that it be brought to them. The second verse is nothing less than extortion. And that’s what’s happening each year: thousands of people singing verses about demanding free food from strangers, and then topping it off with an overt threat to ensure that they receive it. This is not exactly a shining example of the proverbial “good will toward men”.

There is more to the story, of course, so allow me to share this song’s historical context, in order to prevent society from descending into anarchy next Christmas. In England, several hundred years ago, the less fortunate would sing Christmas carols at the houses of the wealthier people, and receive some sort of handout as a token of their appreciation (figgy pudding and a cup of good cheer). The line “We won’t go until we get some” is interpreted as: the carolers won’t stop singing until they received something from the homeowner.

.

The Little Drummer Boy

This song has been the inspiration for the following memes.

These meme authors make a good point: Mary, an exhausted new mother, can rest now after Jesus has finally fallen asleep. Along comes a boy who thinks to himself “What this lady needs right now is a drum solo!”

The Little Drummer Boy was written in 1941 by Katherine Kennicott Davis. According to Wikipedia, “[One day], when she was trying to take a nap, she was obsessed with this song that came into her head.” It’s almost as if she were thinking “If this song is preventing me from taking a nap, then it will also prevent the baby Jesus from having a nap!”.

.

It’s a Wonderful Life

It’s not a Christmas carol, but it’s arguably the most beloved Christmas movie of all time. However, it also contains a poor behavioural example, and I’m not talking about that dastardly Mr. Potter. Consider this scene at the beginning of the film:

The angel Clarence, at the beckoning of his elders, prevents George Bailey from committing suicide – but only so he can earn his wings, and not because helping others is the right and decent thing to do.

Clarence: You sent for me, sir?
Franklin: Yes, Clarence. A man down on Earth needs our help.
…
Clarence: Sir… If I should accomplish this mission – I mean – might I perhaps win my wings?

Even for a human, this is an incredibly self-serving attitude. Angels (and even potential angels) should hold themselves to a much higher standard of behaviour than mere mortals. Don’t adopt Clarence’s quid pro quo philosophy of life – embrace the spirit of giving. Make a point of helping others because it’s the right thing to do, and not because there’s something in it for you.

.

Winter Wonderland

Sleigh bells ringing, snow glistening… this song certainly paints a wonderful portrait of the holiday season. However, things soon become more sinister… Here is an excerpt:

“In the meadow, we can build a snowman,
And pretend that he’s a circus clown.
We’ll have lots of fun with Mr. Snowman,
Until the other kiddies knock him down.“

This song normalizes vandalism. If the neighbourhood kids build a snowman in their front yard, then you should admire their handiwork, ambition and Christmas spirit. However, this song makes it seem inevitable that other kids will knock down their neighbour’s snowman, simply because it exists. To me, that’s unacceptable, and is a symptom of a broken society. Notice also that these perpetrators are called “kiddies”, instead of the juvenile vandals that they really are – in an attempt to downplay the seriousness of their anti-social behaviour.

However, there is a glimmer of hope. The Eurythmics recorded a version with slightly altered lyrics. The line in their adaptation is:

“We’ll have lots of fun with Mr. Snowman,
until the other kiddies come around.“

It’s a subtle, but important modification. My interpretation is that the neighbourhood children are walking by your house, and asking you to join them in whatever winter activities they have planned. At this point, you would leave your snowman for a while, and join your friends. This Christmas season, be like Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart: let your Christmas spirit include not only goodwill toward others, but also inclusiveness and camaraderie.

.

I’ll Be Home for Christmas

This song was first recorded in 1943 by Bing Crosby. Its point of view is that of a soldier stationed overseas during World War II, writing a letter to his family. In the first verse, he tells his family that he will be coming home for Christmas, and to make preparations for his arrival.

“I’ll be home for Christmas,
You can count on me.
Please have snow and mistletoe,
And presents on the tree.“

But in he final verse, a visit no longer seems likely.

“I’ll be home for Christmas,
If only in my dreams.“

My objection is this: don’t make promises that you can’t keep, especially as a husband and a father. Don’t get your children’s hopes up, put them to work in anticipation of your presence, and then fortify your promise with the words “You can count on me” (some versions of this song use the line “You can plan on me“). This is not what you should say to children who are trying to cope with an absent father, and who are longing for a solid paternal role model.

Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope. Neil Diamond updated the lyrics in his version of this song.

I’ll be home for Christmas,
And you’ll be in my dreams. (verse 1)
Till then you’ll be in my dreams. (verse 2)

He then adds a new (spoken) verse that makes it perfectly clear that he fully intends to keep his promise:

“I’ll be home this Christmas, darling.
I’m coming home to you.
And there’s nothing in the world
That’s gonna get in my way.“

This Christmas season, be like Neil Diamond. Your family is looking up to you as a good behavioural role model. Don’t let them down.

.

Searching for Marriage Material? Go for the Astronomers!

If you’re looking for Mr. or Miss Right – someone who is solid marriage material – then I’d like to humbly suggest that you direct your gaze toward astronomers.

A few years ago, I attended a friend’s wedding. The minister infused the ceremony with a very strong motif: two lives were joining together on this day, and would exist as one in the future. The minister made repeated references to the joining together of the bride and groom. While these flowery and heartfelt metaphors undoubtedly had a few people reaching for their tissues, I, being the consummate nerd, kept thinking of the Atari logo.

As the trajectories of these two lives are supposedly merging into a single path, I also got the impression that the individuality of each person was also going to be diminished or – if I were to take the minister’s sentiments literally – even disappear entirely. That didn’t sound particularly appealing to me; we should still retain our individuality both before and after marriage. Unlike the Atari logo, after the ceremony these two paths are not going to sync up and continue magically in the same direction all the time – there are going to be a few curves and detours during this journey forward.

I needed to find a better metaphor, and after giving this some thought, I saw some similarities between marriage and the orbital paths of binary stars – two stars that orbit each other.

The gravity of each star would affect the orbit of other, and their combined orbit (plotted over time) would resemble a more-or-less sinusoidal pattern. Something like this:

This was a vast improvement over the theoretical straight merged path proposed by the minister, but I still wasn’t happy with it. Just ask any married person to describe their life, and s/he will tell you that married life is full of unexpected twists and turns. How would I visualize that? If I were officiating a marriage, what metaphor could I use that would better prepare the bride and groom for their future life together?

Fast forward to a few days ago… I was speaking with my friend Peter, who is an astronomer, and told him this story. He thought about it, and said that he knew exactly what I was searching for. He told me to have a look at animations of colliding galaxies. He explained that these were an excellent representation of the paths of two people joining together in marriage.

Here are a couple of animations of merging galaxies, and their trajectories after they come together. If you’re married, drop me a line in the comments and tell me how closely these animations represent your life’s journey with your spouse (or just married life in general).

Interacting Galaxy Animation 1

.

Interacting Galaxy Animation 2

During my friend’s wedding, I’m sure that the romanticized Atari logo version of marriage offered by the minister sounded endearing to most people, but it just wasn’t realistic. Marriage will always have unexpected twists and turns. Astronomers know this intuitively, and will not fall for the Disney-fied, romantic comedy versions of “happily ever after”. If you’re looking for Mr. / Miss Right, then you want someone who has this level of insight, who will help you navigate the road ahead during your shared journey.

Astronomers also view life in extremely large terms – astronomical units, light years, eons, billions, trillions, quadrillions – that many of us may have trouble visualizing. This means that life’s daily ups and downs, along with other random disappointments will not upset (or even faze) them. In their world, the annoyance level of such things will likely be rounded down to zero.

And finally, astronomers – more than anyone else – will notice and have the greatest appreciation for your heavenly body!

As The Masks Go On, Our Masks Come Off.

When I was in university, I remember my sociology professor telling us about the various masks we wear in society. He explained “You probably don’t speak the same way to your parents that you do around your friends. You present one version of yourself to your friends, another version of yourself to your kids, and still another version around your parents or your employer.” This was his introduction to one of our textbooks, The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life, by Erving Goffman.

Shakespeare famously wrote, in As You Like It, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players“. Goffman proposed that we are all similarly theatrical, and change our behaviour for different audiences. In this age of social media, his thesis resonates with me even more. Most of us, through the judicious selection of our profile photos, are curating an online image, or (for those who think especially highly of themselves) developing a brand.

If we’re all wearing these various masks, then how can we observe people as they really are?

• One way, as noted in above quote, is to be unimportant. In the TV series Undercover Boss, the CEOs of large corporations would disguise themselves, and work as front-line workers in their own companies, in order to find out what their employees really thought of them.
• Another way is by having someone experience intense or protracted stress. Paramedics and firefighters often face communication difficulties, since people who speak more than one language will often revert to their mother tongue when under a great deal of stress.

Right now, as the coronavirus pandemic is spreading to every country on the planet, we are all under a great deal of pressure: loved ones are sick and dying; entire industries have shut down, causing instant and indefinite unemployment; self-isolation is causing an increase in domestic abuse. What’s happening is also ironic: As we don our N95 (or homemade) masks, the coronavirus pandemic has simultaneously removed the societal masks we used to wear every day, and is now exposing to the world, our true nature as individuals.

If there is something encouraging I can say about this pandemic it’s that we have all been granted a new (but temporary) superpower: we now possess the equivalent of those comic book x-ray specs, which give us the ability to see beneath everyone’s carefully-crafted public persona, and discover who they really are beneath the surface.

And now, with apologies to Charles Dickens, “It was the best of humanity, it was the worst of humanity.”

.
The Bad Actors

* A shopper in a Woolworth’s supermarket Sydney, Australia pulls out a knife in an argument over toilet paper.
* An Asian student is physically assaulted in London in a coronavirus-related attack.
* Scammers call people and tell them that they have tested positive for COVID-19. Then they ask for their credit card information.
* A Vancouver couple was trying to clean up by buying as many Lysol wipes as they could, in order to sell them at a profit.
* A store manager recounts abhorrent customer behaviour in the midst of the pandemic.
* A Toronto man created and sold fake COVID-19 testing kits.
* In Hamilton, Ontario, an 18-year-old woman wanted to get out of work, so she forged a doctor’s note stating that she had COVID-19. The restaurant had to close down, send everyone home, and hire a professional cleaning service to sanitize the store.
* It’s exceedingly difficult to get food delivered in New York City these days, so some people are luring Instacart shoppers with incredibly large tips – only to change them to zero when the food is actually delivered.
* In Newport, Oregon, some people are calling 911 because they’ve run out of toilet paper.

.
The Angels Who Walk Among Us

• First and foremost, the front-line workers. Not just health care workers, but bus drivers, police officers, and everyone who works in a grocery store. These are the people who regularly put their own lives at risk – every day – to care for us and alleviate our suffering. They are the true heroes and heroines of this pandemic, and when the danger has finally passed, we will owe them a debt that can never be repaid.

• Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, better known as LVMH, is reconfiguring its perfume factories to make free hand sanitizer.
• Distilleries in Oregon, Georgia and North Carolina are using their in-house alcohol supply to make hand sanitzer and distribute it for free.
• Many Supermarket chains are opening an hour earlier, typically from 7:00 – 8:00 am) and reserving that time for seniors to shop. The rationale is that the stores will be less crowded, which is important for people with weak immune systems. Since the stores are restocked and disinfected each night, they will also be clean and fully-stocked.

• Many musicians are serenading their fans with at-home mini-concerts, to help them through the self-isolation.
• Burton Cummings.
• Kim Mitchell.
• Sheryl Crow.
• John Fogerty (Creedence Clearwater Revival).
• Michael McDonald (Doobie Brothers).
• Paul Stanley (KISS).
• Brian May (Queen).
• Dennis DeYoung (Styx).
• Rick Springfield.
• Melissa Etheridge.
• Neil Diamond.
• Cat Stevens.
• Carole King.
• Sting.
• Jimmy Buffett.
• Norah Jones.

• Yo Yo Ma is presenting a series of performances on his Twitter feed called Songs of Comfort.

• Patrick Stewart is helping us to endure this self-isolation by reading A Sonnet A Day.

• Neil Sedaka delights us with a different medley of tunes each day.

• Tim Horton’s is giving free coffee to health care workers.

• Schools in Nebraska are donating their 3D printers to manufacture hospital supplies.
• A long list of Florida restaurants are offering various discounts and well as free delivery during this pandemic.
• Hospital parking, which has always been horrendously expensive, is now free in British Columbia.
• In Texas, South Carolina, and various other states, people are offering to lend their campers and RVs to doctors and health care workers for free, so that they can self-isolate from their families as they continued to work in hospitals during the pandemic (photo credit: CNN).

• Michigan’s governor is offering that state’s essential workers (those without a college degree) a “tuition-free pathway to college”.
• A preacher is offering free Bible study classes on his YouTube channel.
• Using large sheets of acrylic, a Chicago restauranteur is using his pizza oven to mold face shields for hospital workers.
• A Cambridge, Ontario textile company is now manufacturing masks and gowns and selling them at or below cost.
• People in Toronto are offering free groceries to those in need.

• This Nevada student created a network of volunteers to provide groceries to the elderly, for free.
• A man just bought $169 of groceries, but his debit card wasn’t working. A lady in line behind him paid his grocery bill for him.
• In Kitchener, Ontario, a starving man resorted to shoplifting at a supermarket to feed himself. When caught, the security guard listened to his story and said “It’s OK. We will feed you, we’ll feed you. We will get you food”.
• A New York City hotel is donating the contents of their mini-bars to front-line workers.

• Little things can often make a big difference. A Mississauga lady has been painting whimsical designs on rocks, and then placing them around the neighbourhood to, as she puts it “spread a little cheer”.

• This is just one example, but ordinary people all over the country are making masks and providing them to anyone who needs one, for free.
• And finally, those of us who venture out to our balconies and front yards every evening, banging pots and making noise – giving thanks to the health care workers and everyone else who are risking their health daily for our safety. As individuals, we may not have any in-demand skills, or even feel that we have anything to contribute, but at least we can show our appreciation.

.

.

The Coronavirus Doesn’t Care About Your Freedom

I saw this photo on my Facebook feed this week, and it really stood out among the hundreds of coronavirus news stories that are populating social media feeds these days.

On April 20, 2020, in Denver Colorado, people dressed in scrubs and masks (who are likely health care workers) blocked another group of citizens who were protesting the state’s coronavirus lockdown measures.

On the surface, this is a study in contrast: Two diametrically opposed sides in the coronavirus wars. The man in scrubs is likely educated, well-informed, analytical, simultaneously courageous and cautious, and (I would imagine) has a dominant, data-driven left-hemisphere. The lady (from what I can infer) runs on emotion: bold, egotistical and defiant, wrapping and hiding her ignorance in a shroud of puffed-up patriotism. She is maskless, and sitting only two feet away from the vehicle’s driver. The letters “USA” are emblazoned boldly across her shirt, along with red stripes along her left sleeve, and stars along the right sleeve, mimicking the American flag. As these two ideological adversaries proceed to stare each other down, she leans out of the open passenger window, holds up a large white placard with the words “LAND of the FREE”, and shouts at the man in scrubs: “Land of the free! Go to China if you want communism!”

This is a fascinating snapshot: it’s not merely a still frame of the Denver protest, and it’s more than a broader depiction of our divided society. When I look at this image, I see what my English teacher would describe as two of the classic literary conflicts: Man vs. Man on a micro level, but more importantly: Man vs. Nature on a macro level. In the latter conflict, the protagonist is pitted against the prodigious power of Nature, and is called to battle forces that are beyond his/her control. These obstacles must be surmounted in order to survive, or to restore order to their world. Their response to this challenge will often reveal their core values and deepest fears.

We are now in the role of this protagonist, and are presently engaging the juggernaut that is Nature. Despite humankind’s exalted position at the summit of the evolutionary pyramid, we are not masters of our domain. We are merely guests on this planet, and we must function within a large and intricate ecosystem.

Statistically, the lady in the truck is more likely to get COVID-19 than the man in scrubs. All of the defiance in the world will not make any difference. Nature doesn’t care about our histrionics, our constitutional rights, or whether we want to play golf or get a haircut. The coronavirus – often described as the great equalizer – doesn’t care about your political affiliation or your station in life. The only thing that matters is our behaviour, which is influenced by many things, including: humility, open-mindedness, our level of education, our collective understanding of basic epidemiology, and our understanding of the behaviour of the coronavirus itself.

When I was a kid, I used to watch Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom and various National Geographic documentaries on television. These wildlife programs would seem horrific today – animals routinely fought to the death, and predators would lie in wait to attack an unsuspecting, weaker prey. A pride of lions would chase down a herd of gazelles and pounce upon the unfortunate one who wasn’t able to keep up with everyone else. It was brutal and unforgiving, but that was Nature.

These documentaries also made me think about humankind, how civilized we were by comparison, and some of the stark differences between humans and animals:

• For one thing, we have respect for human life, and value it above all else.
• As individuals, we formed social networks, which over time, coalesced into tribes, communities, societies, and finally cultures.
• We care for those in our community, and we also support the weakest members of our society.

As this planet’s most successful species, it’s easy to believe that we are, collectively, the fittest, and thus destined to survive anything that Nature could hurl at us. However, that’s not exactly what Charles Darwin meant when he wrote about survival of the fittest. We need to be flexible and we need to adapt to a constantly-changing environment. Rigid defiance is the antithesis of adaptability.

The dangers of arrogance and self-importance shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, since it’s been ingrained in popular culture for the past 2,000 years. I’m sure that we are all acquainted with the Biblical phrase “Pride goeth before a fall“. If you look up the Seven Deadly Sins in Wikipedia, you’ll see that hubris (pride) is referred to as the most serious of these sins.

We humans have created a luxurious little bubble for ourselves on this planet, and we often forget what things are like outside of it. Ascend 30,000 feet from the Earth’s surface and there is no longer enough oxygen to support life. Even at ground level, the weather is often ruthless and harsh. Hurricanes destroy homes and make communities uninhabitable. Tornadoes carve an unpredictable path of destruction through neighbourhoods. Volcanoes erupt with billowing clouds of toxic ash, while their rivers of lava mercilessly consume everything in their paths. Lightning strikes kill 6,000 people every year.

U.S. President Barack Obama consoles a tornado victim in Moore, Oklahoma, May 2013.

As technologically advanced as we are, we must never forget that we are not (and will never be) the rulers of this planet. We are merely temporary guests in Mother Nature’s house, and she is a strict and unforgiving hostess who will not hesitate to do some proverbial spring cleaning every now and then. Defiance, shouting about our constitutional rights, claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax… none of that will make any difference. Nature doesn’t care. The best defense is education, humility and adaptability – understanding as much as we can, realizing that we are merely tenants and not landlords, learning our planetary “house rules”, and finally, modifying our behaviour so that we can work within those rules. If we choose to make our own rules, then we will be unceremoniously evicted.

We are now the gazelles and our herd is being culled by Nature. Just like the National Geographic documentaries, those of us who are most likely to be the victims will also be the slowest… to adapt.

.

.

Who Has a Happier Life? Harry & Meghan, or You?

On January 8, 2020, Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced via Instagram that they planned to step away from their royal duties.

The next day, I was listening to a talk radio show, and the host speculated that this desire to step back from their royal duties might be a case of “the grass is always greener”.

This was an interesting hypothesis. While it may not be apparent at first glance, members of the British royal family do live a circumscribed existence. There are endless engagements, and every hour of each day is planned weeks or even months in advance. While they do go on vacations, the security requirements mean that those, too, must be planned well in advance. I imagine that their vacations would also follow a strict itinerary, and any spur-of-the-moment sightseeing trips would be discouraged.

I admit that this is just pure speculation, but perhaps having an American wife who is also a commoner may have made Harry long for the freedom of charting his own path in life. Being born a royal, Harry knew of no other existence. I suppose it’s possible that Meghan opened his eyes to another way of living – the joy of waking up in the morning to a completely blank slate, and being able to spend the day any way you wish – without a staff member handing you a list of engagements.

.

The Prince and the Pauper Redux

The most fascinating aspect of this decision is that it appears to be a real-life variation of Charles Dickens’ novel, The Prince and the Pauper. As you know, it is the story of two boys who were born on the same day and who look exactly alike. After a chance meeting, the prince suggests that they wear each other’s clothes, and temporarily switch places. We may be soon experiencing half of this story, as Prince Harry steps back from his royal duties and appears to long for a less rarefied existence.

This got me thinking, and I decided to do a little comparative analysis. Who is living a happier life? British royals, or we, the commoners, living our ordinary and comparatively unglamourous lives?

First, let’s look at the advantages of being born into a royal family:

• You are born with a title, and you may even receive additional titles. Prince Harry is also the Duke of Sussex, the Earl of Dumbarton and the Baron Kilkeel. Prince William can be referred to as the Duke of Cambridge, the Earl of Strathearn or the Baron Carrickfergus. Prince Charles holds the following additional titles: the Prince of Wales, the Earl of Chester, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick, the Baron of Renfrew, the Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

• You get to grow up in a palace. As an adult, you will still live in a palace, often with subsidized rent, or even rent-free.
• You have a staff to attend to your every need. About 1500 people work in Buckingham Palace which means that you won’t need to worry about mundane things like grocery shopping, cooking, washing dishes, laundry, ironing, vacuuming, taking out the garbage, cutting the grass, gardening, home repairs, car maintenance or returning library books before the due date so you won’t have to pay a fine.
• You won’t need to look for a job, or worry about updating your resume.
• You’ll have a 24/7 security detail.
• Inconsiderate drivers will no longer frustrate you, since someone else will be driving you around.
• Mundane financial expenses are no longer a concern. You won’t need to save for your retirement, save for your kids’ education, pay down your student loans, eliminate your credit card debt, save for a down payment on a house, worry about sticking to a monthly budget.
• People bow or curtsy when they meet you, and call you “your royal highness”.
• You have millions of social media followers.

• Shops will often sell out of a particular dress, simply because you wore it to a public even the week before. Your wardrobe choices may even start fashion trends.
• You get to travel all over the world – flying in a private jet and staying in luxurious hotel suites.
• Almost everything you will be newsworthy, which must be a tremendous ego boost.
• And finally, closet space… lots and lots of closet space for your expansive and enviable wardrobe.

.

And now, here are some of the advantages that we have over members of the royal family.

• Unscheduled time. We don’t have people planning every hour (or minute) of our days. We may have many responsibilities, but are ultimately free to do what we want with our time.
• The luxury of choosing a career. We can use our talents (along with a strong work ethic) to make our mark upon the the world. At the pinnacle of our career, we can look back with the satisfaction of knowing that it was all earned, and not merely handed to us.
• We won’t have to deal with the scrutiny of the tabloid press and the paparazzi, monitoring everything we do and speculating on our motives, often in most unflattering ways. We won’t need to display a consistently happy public face.
• Our ancestry (in most cases) won’t be an issue. Meghan Markle has been unfairly and regularly denounced by the British press because of her ethnic heritage. In my opinion, this is something that should be beneath any media outlet – even the tabloids.
• As private citizens, we (generally) don’t need to worry if some psycho is going to harm us. We won’t need to constantly be on guard or hire a security team to surround us whenever we venture outside.
• We can see people for who they are. In The Prince and the Pauper, the prince dresses as a commoner and mingles unrecognized with his subjects to find out what they really think of him. He knows that he doesn’t have this ability (to see the truth as the commoners do) so he devises a way to give himself this power. People behave differently toward celebrities and persons of influence – they will be on their best behaviour, putting on airs and laughing at everything you say. It’s nauseatingly manufactured. As an ordinary citizen, we get to witness everyone’s true character. We see a truth in others that is hidden from famous people.
• Our friends are genuine. We know they like us for who we are, and not because our presence elevates their standing, or because we might catapult them into a higher social stratum.
• Finally, one of the most important aspects of our lives is something that we hardly ever notice: anonymity. It’s the ability to walk into a store, shop and browse to your heart’s content, while remaining unrecognized and unaccosted. It’s the opportunity to sit on a park bench and read a book, undisturbed. It’s the joy of wandering around any town or city and getting a sense of its true character. We should revel in our anonymity, because we can enjoy every day what the Duke and Duchess cannot. The next time you’re out in public, pretend that you are Harry or Meghan and imagine how difficult it would be to do run your errands, or to simply enjoy an afternoon stroll.

Which lifestyle seems more desirable? Who, in your opinion, leads a happier life – the Duke and Duchess, or you? As for me, I’m quite content living a low-key, low-stress and decidedly unglamourous existence as a complete unknown. The grass is indeed greener under my feet.

.

.

Reclaim The Power That Celebrities Have Over You

A couple of days after Don Cherry Remembrance Day poppy scandal, one of my friends posted this observation on Facebook:

Then, a short time later, I read this article in which sports commentator Parminder Singh said of Cherry’s words “These were hurtful comments when I felt that I was pushed to the wayside along with all the other ‘you people.’ ” I must admit, I was dismayed and a little saddened to read these. The gentlemen in both examples were Sikhs, yet Cherry didn’t mention Sikhs (or any particular ethnic group) in his diatribe. He simply said “you people”. These men internalized Cherry’s mean-spiritedness and assumed that it was directed toward them. I understand why they felt this way. Back in 2017, I wrote a blog post called The Most Hurtful Interpretation, and sadly, this is yet another example of this quirk of human nature.

Don Cherry has been shooting off his mouth on a wide range of topics for as long as I can remember, and I generally ignore whatever comes out of it. Until I read my friend’s Facebook post, I had just assumed most people shared my view of celebrities and their overblown opinions.

I had no idea that Don Cherry, from his pulpit on Coach’s Corner, had the power to make people feel inadequate. I can’t undo the hurt that he’s already caused by his insensitive comments, but I would like to share and expand upon my personal philosophy regarding celebrities. This particular view has made me immune to anything they might say, and I hope that I can pass along this immunity to you.

In an ideal world, celebrities would restrict their comments to their own particular field of expertise. As you know, this is not true – many will pontificate on any subject, regardless of their level of familiarity. Also, in an ideal world, the general public would ignore media figures who tried to advise them when speaking outside of their particular field. Alas, this also rarely happens.

One truly bizarre example that still leaves me shaking my head is: those wayward souls who are opposed to vaccinations. Many people have been taking the advice of celebrities (who have no medical education or training) over the sound advice of their doctors. According to this article, When it Comes to Vaccines, Celebrities Often Call the Shots  fame and social status seems to be more highly regarded than informed and educated opinions. This is truly sad, because this skewed attribution of importance has resulted in a resurgence of many potentially fatal and debilitating diseases. Simply having your face on a television screen does not mean that you’re well-informed, or that you know more than anyone else – listen to and follow your doctor’s advice.

Of course, some of what celebrities say is officially sanctioned, and takes the form of a corporate sponsorship. Back in the 1990s, I saw a TV commercial about batteries featuring (basketball legend) Michael Jordan. My initial thoughts were “What does Michael Jordan know about batteries? Probably less than I do. Why should I listen to him, when I can approach a random person on the street and likely receive a more informed opinion?” Secondly, that commercial didn’t even address any pertinent information, such as: its storage capacity compared to leading competitors, its shelf life, how well it works with high-drain devices, and a cost per use comparison. So I did what I usually do – I completely ignored whatever he said about batteries.

This has been my prevailing attitude toward celebrity endorsements for as long as I can remember. I know that they’re getting paid a lot of money as a spokesperson, and that personal enrichment is likely the motivating factor behind their decision. Celebrity endorsements have a negative effect on me because my first thoughts are generally “Don’t you already make enough money?” or “Are you unable to stay within your lofty budget, or are you just greedy?”.

Of course, linking a famous name to a product shouldn’t be confused with designer labels, like Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors etc. Their primary business is selling clothes, and their name is their brand. This is their area of expertise. The ones I ignore are those who espouse opinions or promote products in an unrelated industry, in which they have no expertise or experience. If Wayne Gretzky wants to sell a certain brand of hockey stick, then that carries some weight. On the other hand, if he wants me to buy a particular brand of ketchup, then I will likely switch the channel or turn the magazine page.

Until now, I just assumed that everyone automatically made this distinction. Which brings us to Don Cherry and Coach’s Corner…

Don Cherry had a notable career both as a hockey player and as a hockey coach. He knows far more than I, and I would not question his knowledge or challenge his advice in this arena. However, when it comes to immigration, he is obviously out of his depth, and I don’t feel that I have any obligation to give his opinions any weight, to agree with him, or even to listen to his rants. Frankly, he can say anything he likes about immigration, and his views will be summarily ignored. That’s why I was so surprised and disparaged to hear about my friend’s Facebook post, and the CBC article. Clearly, there are many people who are taking his comments to heart, and who feel genuinely hurt, or even threatened, by them.

Here is my call to action: I want you to reclaim your ability to be influenced, and refuse to hand it over to anyone who appears on a television screen, or on any type of media, social or otherwise. Doing this is incredibly easy. Take a look at this man, announcing that the end of the world is imminent. If you passed him on the street, how would he make you feel?

You would probably be amused, or perhaps feel a slight twinge of pity. However, I don’t imagine that you would suddenly run home and begin getting your affairs in order. That’s because it’s a pretty safe bet that this guy doesn’t know – any more than you or I – when the world is going to end. You haven’t given him any credibility, and with it, the power to scare you. That’s because you know he doesn’t possess any specialized knowledge on this subject. And this is exactly the way I want you to think about Don Cherry or any other media figure when they start spouting off about any topic outside of their specialization. They don’t know any more than the average person about this particular topic, and shouldn’t be given any credence whatsoever.

Don Cherry (and people like him) don’t have the power to hurt you, or to make you feel inadequate. Unfortunately, society is giving celebrities a platform from which they can speak about any topic, even if they know very little about it. Saddest of all, we are, in many cases, allowing ourselves to be a passive audience who won’t challenge their statements except in the most egregious cases.

Don’t confuse fame with a wide-ranging expertise. Having fan base means that you should be taken seriously when speaking on any subject, or even listened to. A face on a television screen means nothing, unless you have the education and specialized knowledge to back up your statements and opinions. Knowing this will ensure that no one has the power to make you feel like less of a person. You, as a critical thinker, have more power than you realize, and celebrities have far less influence than you have been attributing to them. Reclaim your power, starting today.

.

.

Should Don Cherry Have Been Fired?

This is the story-du-jour: Don Cherry’s rant on Coach’s Corner about Canadian immigrants and the Remembrance Day poppy. On the November 9, 2019 broadcast of Coach’s Corner, Don Cherry announced that he was no longer going to run his annual Remembrance Day montage because people – specifically, those who are new to Canada – were not wearing the poppies. Here’s what he said:

“You know, I was talking to a veteran, and I said, I’m not going to run the poppy thing [his annual Remembrance Day montage] anymore, because what’s the sense? I live in Mississauga, nobody wears, very few people wear a poppy. Downtown Toronto, forget it, downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy. And I’m not going to, and he says, ‘wait a minute. How about running it for the people that buy them’? Now you go to the small cities and you know, the rows on rows, you people love — that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada, these guys paid the biggest price. Anyhow, I’m going to run it for you great people and good Canadians that bought a poppy. I’m still gonna run it anyhow.”

You know what happened next. The backlash vent viral, and by November 11th, on both mainstream and social media, Don Cherry’s comments were eclipsing the Remembrance Day ceremonies themselves. The number of complaints to the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council was so high that it overwhelmed their system.

There has been a (predictable) binary reaction among the general public. On November 11, 2019, two Twitter hashtags were trending: #DonCherryIsRight and #DonCherryIsWrong.

That same day, Cherry’s employer, Sportsnet, announced that he had been fired from Coach’s Corner.

Sportsnet’s Firing – What Exactly Did They Accomplish?

Cherry’s firing by Sportsnet was practically expected, because this is yet another example of Cancel Culture. It’s a modern, urban version of excommunication and the Amish practice of shunning. The sinner is ostracized, and on some level it makes us feel as though we’ve accomplished something.

I see Cancel Culture as a variation of the old boys’ country club attitude. It’s not whom you include, but whom you exclude that gives one a sense of importance, prestige and exclusivity. Now we’re adopting that same exclusionary attitude ourselves – ironically, by appearing inclusionary. We are patting ourselves on our collective backs in sanctimonious glee as we cast off yet another citizen who has suddenly become undesirable. Does this make us better people living in a better society? I’m not convinced.

For the past 38 years, sports fans have (for the most part) enjoyed watching and listening to the bombastic bluster of an acerbic and colourful sports commentator who often made provocative statements. On Sunday November 9th, Cherry crossed the proverbial point of no return with his “those people” diatribe. Two days later he was fired, and this week, we now have a bitter, unrepentant, unemployed person, who still holds exactly the same antiquated views.

Sportsnet, rather than considering and discussing various ways to handle this public relations nightmare, was simply reacting to (and perhaps trying to quell) the increasingly heated negative public sentiment.

What bothers me is that the firing was reactionary gesture. Animals react to stimuli. We humans – from our illustrious and coveted perch at the top of the evolutionary ladder – are logical and rational beings. We think, consider, evaluate and analyze. Then, when all of the data has been processed, we can either formulate a well-reasoned or strategic response, or decide to simply ignore it.

In this spirit, let’s calmly and dispassionately analyze Don Cherry’s comments. In doing so, we’ll be able to gain some insight.

Analysis – A Darwinian Relic

When Charles Darwin wrote about the survival of the fittest, he wasn’t talking about the strongest – he meant those who could most easily adapt to changes in their environment.

Don Cherry has been a broadcaster for the CBC since 1980, which means that he’s lived and worked for almost four decades in the Greater Toronto Area – Canada’s most multicultural metropolitan region. Four decades of continual exposure to the multitude of cultures in the GTA would certainly beget not only a tolerance, but an understanding and appreciation of people from various backgrounds. After that much time living within Toronto’s cultural mosaic, why would he (or anyone) still use a term like “you people”? Some insight can be found in Bruce Arthur’s column in The Toronto Star: Don Cherry Never Changed, Even As the World Did. Cherry is a Canadian institution, but at 85, he still remains an inflexible relic of the past – an Archie Bunker in the 21st century.

Analysis – A Lack of Understanding

A careful re-reading of his comments clearly illustrates several important knowledge gaps and generalizations.

• Canadians, unless they are indigenous, are all immigrants. We, or our ancestors, all came to Canada seeking a better life.

• Cherry’s generalization – immigrants don’t wear the poppy, and by extension, don’t care about the sacrifices made by our veterans – suggests that immigrants did not suffer or fight during conflicts in their home country. Many newcomers to Canada have likely had more first-hand experience with war than those who were born here – i.e. Cherry’s “good Canadians”.

• He is likely not aware of the role that Sikhs had in Canada’s military. I would expect of someone who is such a strong advocate of veterans, to be more knowledgeable about Canada’s military history and the contributions made over the years by all cultures. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh tweeted the following response  to Cherry’s invective.

Analysis – Flaws In Logic

• You can’t make any assumptions about someone based on whether s/he is wearing a poppy. One of my friends remarked that he knows people who place money in the poppy box but don’t actually wear the poppy.

• These days, there’s a different-coloured ribbon for just about everything. Wearing a certain shirt colour on a particular day means that you support some cause. I realize that for someone who spent decades in the broadcasting business, this may be a little hard to fathom, but not everyone broadcasts their feelings, beliefs and supported charities via ribbons, clothing or poppies. Consider this: if I didn’t see you in church last Sunday, can I assume (and then state on television) that you’re a heathen?

• Cherry did try to backpedal in a follow-up interview and say that “those people” really meant anyone who wasn’t wearing a poppy, but I’m not buying it. Identifying “those people” was done empirically, and (likely) based on physical attributes that are observable at a distance, such as skin tone or head coverings.

A Noble and Novel Approach: Kindness

Since Don Cherry is a media figure, our connection with him is through our television screens. Coach’s Corner represents his connection with the general public, and removing his soapbox represents a wholesale rejection of the man – both the good and the bad – since he is now “out of sight and out of mind”. However, Don Cherry does have some good qualities. According to Bruce Arthur “Cherry did good things. He visited kids in hospitals. He raised countless millions for charity. He supported women’s hockey”. By proclaiming “good riddance”, we are, in essence, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Yes, Don Cherry behaved poorly, but I don’t necessarily want him to be punished, discarded and ostracized. I want Don Cherry to learn from this and to grow. I’d like him to recognize and appreciate the goodness in all of the different people in his community. Ultimately, I want him to become a kinder, more compassionate, tolerant and considerate person. I think that we would all benefit from that outcome.

As one of my friends pointed out “We, collectively, bear the burden of convincing others that everyone is worthy of being treated with respect.” This is our opportunity to begin a conversation, to help Mr. Cherry to become a better person, and to do it with kindness and compassion, instead of a sneering sense of schadenfreude.

An Extemporaneous Speech

We should be kind to Mr. Cherry in part because his comments were extemporaneous. His words obviously won’t be as polished as a written or a prepared statement – one which may have undergone numerous edits and have been reviewed by several people. Verbal comments composed on-the-spot often require clarifications.

In a follow-up interview, Cherry admitted to a poor choice of words, and added “I wish I had used something else besides ‘you people’ I think I would’ve said: ‘Everybody else. Everybody should be wearing a poppy”. Whether he was merely backpedaling in response to the widespread furor or whether this was a genuine clarification is anyone’s guess, but it does contrast off-the-cuff verbal remarks with scripted written statements.

Redemption

Despite all of the negative publicity, Don Cherry does have some good qualities (mentioned by Bruce Arthur, above) which is why I personally don’t believe this outspoken man – even at age 85 – is beyond redemption.

Ebenezer Scrooge was similarly old, intolerant of others, despised by many, and decidedly and set in his misanthropic ways. Yet he was still capable of a monumental change. Similarly, the Grinch also demonstrated that he could improve – his heart grew three sizes that one Christmas. Admittedly, these are two fictional characters, but the lesson that I take away from these stories is that no one should be considered beyond redemption.

The Prodigal Son

We need to have more faith in Don Cherry (and our fellow wo/man in general), and ostracism (or its 21st-century media equivalent, the loss of his media platform and his connection with society) is not the answer. In the Parable of the The Prodigal Son, the wayward son was welcomed back home again, much to the consternation of his dutiful older brother. This moral of this story (as I interpret it) illustrates not only the power of forgiveness, but also faith in our fellow human beings. Faith that they will grow, mature and develop into better people, and finally, recognizing and rewarding them for this improvement.

I want you to think about the number of hours that you’ve spent in church, or in your particular place of worship, and all of the sermons you’ve heard over the years (or decades). If you haven’t already done so, then now is an excellent time to start practicing these lessons!

The Raptors Superfan Approach

Nav Bhatia is a Toronto area Hyundai dealer, who is better known as the Toronto Raptors’ superfan. He has attended every one of their home games since the team was formed. During the 2019 NBA playoffs a Milwaukee fan posted a racist tweet  about him. Bhatia’s response was remarkable. He contacted the man and had a conversation with him. Then Bhatia went to Milwaukee to meet him, bought him dinner, met with his family, and took this man’s son to his first NBA. Now Bhatia says that the two of them are “friends for life”.

Bhatia could have tweeted a scathing rebuttal, which I’m sure would make him feel good, but would also lower him to the antagonizer’s level. It would also be easy to assume that this man was beyond hope or redemption, but Bhatia took a more contructive approach. He was able to strip away that racist exterior and expose the kind person underneath. The hate is gone, and now goodness remains.

The Crucial First Step

Before we can move forward, we need to strike a balance between compassion and pragmatism. There is one dependency that needs to be fulfilled: the transgressor must recognize the error of his ways, and must also have a genuine desire to change and better himself. This condition is a common thread in the above examples:

• Ebenezer Scrooge, after seeing his name on the gravestone, cries out to the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come “Spirit! I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life!”

• In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the son realized the error his ways and said to his father “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”
  
• Nav Bhatia noted “We had a great conversation. He was very remorseful for what he had said on twitter. It was done in the heat of a playoff series and he was trying to be funny. He knows he was wrong.”

As of this writing, Don Cherry hasn’t apologized, and still stands by his original comments. That’s OK – I can wait. Once he takes that first step, then we can begin.

Final Thoughts

None of us is perfect, but I also believe that no one is completely incorrigible. We are all capable of improving ourselves and becoming better people, and by doing so, we make society a better place. Subscribing to the Cancel Culture means that we are refusing to give others the opportunity to better themselves. As we, with disheartening regularity, smugly cast people aside like a piece of detritus, what does this say about us and our character?

We can continue to shun Don Cherry, or we can – after he takes that crucial first step – welcome Don Cherry back into the fold, and help him to become the best version of himself.

.

.