CBC REPORTER DRAWS PARALLEL WITH THE LEGEND OF SIR BEDIVERE: Ageism is most common, most tolerated form of discrimination in Canada, Tendency to structure society based on assumption that everybody is young

Azzo Rezori has been working with CBC News in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1987, and reports regularly for Here & Now and other broadcasts. I turn Wrights Lane over to him today because in this post he addresses a subject that should be of interest to every senior citizen in Canada. 

       
It's been around since 1990, mostly ignored at first but steadily gaining in relevance as the world heads into what the World Health Organization calls a "demographic revolution." About 600 million people world-wide are 60 years and over right now. That's expected to double by 2025. If the trend continues, the number will reach two billion by 2050.

Azzo Rezori

A lot of work will have to be done to prepare for that revolution, including a change in a still very common form of discrimination: ageism.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission considers ageism the most common and most tolerated form of discrimination in Canada, and there are figures to back it up. Conducted in 2012, the survey for the Revera Report on Ageism found six in ten Canadian seniors feel they've been discriminated against because of their age. One in three Canadians admits to having done the discriminating at one point or another.



Sir Bedivere is best known for returning Excalibur
to the Lady of the Lake, on behalf of the mortally
wounded King Arthur.

Seven in ten Canadians agree that their society values young people more than old ones.  That reminds me of the story of Sir Bedivere, King Arthur's long-time marshal.

Bedivere gets mentioned at the beginning of the Arthurian cycle of legends as a man of "perfect sinew" and of "furious nature with sword and shield" who also wielded a magic lance. In other words, he was a knight to be reckoned with.

He's mentioned again at the end of the cycle as the only one of Arthur's knights to survive the final battle. The mortally wounded king asks him to dispose of the magic sword Excalibur by throwing it into the waiting hand of the Lady of the Lake. And so the loyal, old knight gets to end the whole story with a reluctant swish and splash.  But it's his life in between that intrigues me because it gets so little mention despite all of Bedivere's obvious prowess.

Most of the attention is on all the young buckos who turn up at Camelot, make their mark, and end up becoming Knights of the Round Table — Gawain, Lancelot, Percival, Tristan, Erec, Galahad, the list goes on.

We can only speculate what Bedivere is up to while those lads hog the limelight. I imagine it something like this.  It's mid-morning. Everybody's had their cold splash and a hearty breakfast. The knights take their seats around the table, and Arthur hands out the quests of the day.

Another giant has been reported obstructing an important river crossing. "Lancelot, I want you to take care of that."  Complaints have come in of a witch luring children into the woods outside a village. "Percival, that's for you."

The offspring of a dragon Tristan slew a few years earlier has grown up and become a pest that needs to be dealt with. "Erec, you haven't slain a dragon yet. Go for it."

And so the assignments are handed out around the table until it's poor old Bedivere's turn.  "Sorry, Beddy," says Arthur. "I don't have anything for you right now. But you might check the mousetraps."

"Again," Bedivere grumbles into his grey beard as he trundles off.  Of course he's every bit as good at catching mice as he still is at giving any giant, witch, or dragon a good thrashing. He's also too nice a guy to complain in front of his king.

The Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse says the problem with ageism is that it's such a slippery slope. Older people may be perceived as different at first; slowly yet inexorably the notion of 'different' turns into the notion of 'less'.

"Ageing is a highly individual experience," a fact sheet by the Ontario Human Rights Commission reminds its readers. "It is not possible to generalize about the skills and abilities of an older person based on age."

Yet even older people themselves have bought into the notion of less.

An Ipso Reid survey, also from 2012, confirms that many Canadian workplaces shun older job applicants simply because of their age.  People surveyed were asked what their preferred age bracket would be if they did the hiring.

Generally, one would expect respondents to pick candidates of roughly their own age. Not so in the case of respondents 55 years and older. They preferred the 25 to 34 age bracket.

According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the prejudice against old age is woven into the very fabric of society. The commission concludes there's a clear tendency "to structure society based on the assumption that everybody is young."

And I'm thinking, poor old Beddy. He's in a hard place.  The only way he can save face is by convincing those around him that catching mice is every bit as challenging as lopping the heads off dragons — maybe even more so because mice are a lot smaller, a lot faster, and arguably not half as dumb as dragons. But what does that get him?

The king, his buddy, agrees with him, pats him on the shoulder, says, "Good job", and sends him off to chase more mice.

There was only one Beddy in King Arthur's days.  There will be millions in the years to come.
Clearly attitudes will have to change.

WHAT DOES NEGATIVITY TOWARD OTHERS SAY ABOUT YOU?

In the past I found myself judging just about everyone I met and, sadly, not always in a positive way.  It took me a long time to realize that in negatively judging others, I imposed negativity on myself and it did not feel good.

What type of person do you always catch yourself silently judging?

Is it people with weight issues?

People who live in nice houses and have expensive things?

How about people with addictions like smoking or gambling?

How about control freaks who seem to mega-manage everything?

How about blatantly opinionated people?

How about those who for some reason annoy or frustrate you, but you can’t quite put your finger on why?

Let’s face it! Sometimes even the best of us judge others in ways we’d hate to be judged ourselves.
Why do we do this? Is it out of habit? Or is it an unconscious behavior? And most importantly, how do we let go of the need to judge others and ourselves?

Well, I have found that it’s actually easier than you might think! Here’s how to stop judging people, in two simple steps!

Step 1. Be aware of your thoughts.

When you become aware of the thoughts that are not serving you, you can then guide them towards a more positive path.

And the more you reflect on them, the easier it will be for you to discover where your frustration is coming from and why are you are so quick to judge someone or someone’s situation, and in most cases, without knowing the true facts.

Step 2. Focus on the positive.

Remember that there’s ALWAYS something positive you can find in other people, and when you focus on the positive, amazing things start unfolding.  For instance, you stop focusing on yourself (and your frustration) and you start empathizing and appreciating other people’s qualities, and you open yourself up to all of the great things they can offer.  After all you can't change other people...Why dwell on them?

So…next time you catch yourself judging others, consider what flaws your subconscious judgments of others actually reveal about YOU, and then work to release these negative judgments from your mind.  Let go of the negativity that knaws away at you.  You will live a much happier life!

Trust me, I know from personal experience.

It's pretty crazy how a seemingly tiny shift in your mindset can make such a HUGE impact in your career, your finances, your relationships, your peace of mind -- everything.

Negative Personality Adjectives

 

Most people would consider the character traits described by the personality adjectives below to be "bad" or negative. This is generally true, but remember that there can be exceptions. For example, for a policeman "aggressive" might be a negative trait while for a boxer it might really belong to positive personality adjectives.    

* i.e.: aggressive,  aloof, arrogant, belligerent, big-headed, bitchy, boastful, bone-idle, boring, bossy, callous, cantankerous, careless, changeable, clinging, compulsive, conservative, cowardly, cruel, cunning, cynical, deceitful, detached, dishonest, dogmatic, domineering, finicky, flirtatious, foolish, foolhardy, fussy, greedy, grumpy, gullible, harsh, impatient, impolite, impulsive, inconsiderate. You get the idea!

Most people would also consider the character traits described by the personality adjectives to be "good" or positive. This is generally true, but remember that words are often used subjectively. For example, "determined" is considered a positive personality adjective, while "stubborn" can be considered as a negative personality adjective, yet the meaning of both can be very similar. The choice of a word sometimes says as much about the author as about the person being described.

So be careful in how you choose your words...Society being what it is today.

 

JUST WHEN WE GOT USED TO TRANSGENDER NOW WE HAVE TRANSRACIAL

Until quite recently, society has accepted the definition of a ‘trans’ person to be most closely associated with gender identity. This has been most notably encapsulated in the media by the extensive coverage of Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition. The interest in the Rachel Dolezal case (the originally fair-skinned, blond-haired daughter of white parents who came to identify and live as a black woman) however, has begun to question this definition, and has created something of a political storm.

I did not personally know Bruce Jenner back in the 1970s but I followed his career closely and always admired him for what he accomplished as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, world decathlon champion of all time.  I cannot truthfully say, however, that I understand the Caitlyn Jenner that he has become today.  It is all too far removed from the world in which I live.  Similarly, I know nothing of Rachel Dolezal, only what I have read about her in the past couple of months.


Caitlyn Jenner

Suffice to say, I have difficulty wrapping my mind around both scenarios.  In cases like this, which fascinate me, I try to avoid snap judgments and taking sides. In the long run it is much safer to defer to those who study the issues from a neutral and scholarly perspective.

 

Leading U.S. sociologist, Professor Rogers Brubaker of UCLA, in an article published in Ethnic and Racial Studies believes that we should treat the intertwined discussion of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal as an intellectual opportunity, rather than a political provocation, as it is key to understanding the micropolitics of identity.
 

The image of a corseted Caitlyn Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair, has been a defining moment for the transgender community – marking the mainstreaming of transgender identity. By contrast, the case of Rachel Dolezal, the 37-year old president of the Spokane branch of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), who publicly identifies as black despite being ‘outed’ as white by her parents, has sparked public debate about self-identification and whether it is possible to be ‘transracial’.

Rachel Dolezal

It has been suggested that Dolezal's decision to misrepresent her racial background may be related to family issues and social justice work she has engaged in. She assimilated into African-American culture so strongly that that’s where she transferred her identity. Her explanations for doing so have been evasive and infrequent.

Within hours of this story breaking, the hashtag ‘transracial’ began trending on Twitter. This term, the author suggests, was deployed largely as a political provocation on the cultural right, intended to embarrass the cultural left for embracing Jenner while censoring Dolezal. Conversely, it was taken as a provocation by the cultural left, which categorically rejected the “if Jenner, then Dolezal” syllogism and proclaimed that transracial was “not a thing”. Analyzing the efforts to validate or invalidate the identities claimed by Jenner and Dolezal, Brubaker interestingly shows why it has been easier to accept the possibility of changing gender than changing race.

 

The article situates the Dolezal affair in the content of the destabilization of long taken-for-granted categorical frameworks – deducing that this has “significantly enlarged the scope for choice … in the domains of race, ethnicity, sex and gender”. Yet this has generated anxieties about unnatural or fraudulent identity claims and efforts to “police” questionable claims in the name of “objective” identities. The article shows that the contemporary micropolitics of identity is structured by this tension between the language of choice, subjectivity, and self-fashioning on the one hand and the language of essence, objectivity, and nature on the other.

There are major tensions, not just differences, among the differing trans discourses and projects. The trans of trajectory disturbs existing categorical frameworks least, and may even reinforce them. This explains the ambivalence in trans circles about the Caitlyn Jenner movement. Even as it marked a new stage in the public acceptance of transgender identities, it seemed to reinforce and even re-naturalize gender binaries: the person who had once been perceived as the most masculine of men had come out as the most feminine of women. The Dolezal story, too, did more to reinforce than to disturb racial categories. It is the trans of between and – even more so – the trans of beyond that more profoundly destabilize categorical frameworks.
 

As Professor Brubaker suggests, rather than denouncing the transgender/transracial analogy as fundamentally illegitimate, as many scholars weighing in on the Dolezal affair did, it is prudent to treat it as an intellectual opportunity. Reflecting on the initial round of commentary, Professor Brubaker adds that it is important for scholars to “hold open a space for real intellectual curiosity, for investigations that deepen our understanding of how identity claims and processes function, rather than rushing to offer well-formed opinions based on what we already think we know.” To which I say "amen".

Personally, however, I feel that this is a pointless controversy but nonetheless one that is indicative of a society that takes issue with virtually everything, thanks to easy access to a social media that presents a ready platform for agenda-driven proclamations. This is a dangerous development in public communications because for every well-founded opinion or position, there will be at least a dozen biased expressions that defy common logic and only serve to complicate matters and stir up emotions.  Heaven help us in the event of "the second coming"!...Can't you just imagine the hue and cry from the non-Christians and other religions that make up more than 50 percent of the world's population?

I remain in transition on all of this and continue due diligence.  Strangely, in the process, I have developed compassion for the transgender movement that I do not yet have for the new kid on the block -- transracialism.  It may take me a while to completely understand why anyone would feel so moved as to assume a different racial identity.  I guess what I am looking for is what is to be gained?  I am sure there are some compelling answers to that question.  I have just not heard them yet.  But, transracial?  Why not?

Getting back to the transgender question, I have learned that gender identity is how one identifies in terms of maleness or femaleness.  For a transgender or transsexual person one’s gender identity is different from what one might expect given one's natal or biological sex (‘Sex’ here refers to one’s biological sex – how one was born.)  Gender is not always the same as one’s sex.  ‘Gender Identity’ is how one feels inside, and Sexual Orientation is who one is attracted to vis-à-vis current gender presentation.

‘Gay’, ’Lesbian’ and ‘Bisexual’ are not to be confused with "Transgender".  So, what is the difference between Gay and Transgender?’: To be clear, we see that the difference is that one has to do with sexual orientation (who you are attracted to sexually) and the other has to do with gender identity (who you feel yourself to be). 

There has certainly been a mixed reaction to the Jenner story, some of it bitter and insulting. The main objection has been use of the word "hero". What many detractors do not seem to grasp is that he/she (Bruce/Caitlyn) has become a poster boy/girl for the transgendered of the world and to them he/she is understandably courageous and heroic...To me, that is acceptable. 

This should by no means take anything away from our mothers and sisters who we see as true, genuine "real" women -- women who have worked hard to raise families, many as single parents. But there has to be an acceptance of the fact that definitions are changing in a politicaly-correct world as the ranks of transgendered souls continues to grow and uncloset.

Fifty years from now a complete blending of male, female and trans will have taken place in society and this contentious issue will be long forgotten...No need to justify, prove realness, make comparisons or to put down people that were born just a little different and consequently pay a price in their struggle to realize the (true) identity to which they aspire.

Meantime, let's leave poor (may I say, pathetic) 69-year-old Caitlyn Jenner alone in adjusting to a new life of his/her own choosing while the whole world watches -- and judges.

NEWS FLASH: Rachel Dolezal says she’s pregnant. At, 37, she is in her second trimester and expects to have a boy. She resigned her post as president of the NAACP’s Spokane, Wash., chapter earlier this year. Dolezal previously said she has two sons, one is a 13-year-old she had with an ex-husband. The other is a 21-year-old African-American who grew up as her adopted brother, but later gained legal emancipation from their parents. Dolezal was appointed his guardian.

As with Jenner, I think that we should now leave Rachel Dolezal alone to live the life she chooses regardless of her real ethnicity.

HEY, THAT'S (W)RIGHT, I'M IN PRETTY GOOD COMPANY

There have been times when I, Richard K. Wright, have been confused with Richard B. Wright and I have taken it as a compliment, but have been quick to correct the record.

Richard B. Wright is a brilliant Canadian novelist and commentator on life. I could never hope to carry his jock strap!  There are similarities, however.

Richard B. Wright

We are both the same age.  Richard B. grew up in Midland and like me, during and after the Second World War when children were expected to be modest, obedient and not overly ambitious.  Also, like me, he is nostalgic by nature and invokes Alice Munro's title Who Do You Think You Are? as a perfect embodiment of the reigning social norms of that time and place. His memories are "evocative" as recently pointed out by Toronto poet and book reviewer Bruce Whiteman. The two of us, likewise, have had a life-long struggle with anxiety.  Perhaps it goes with the territory.

After attending Ryerson Poly Institute to study radio and television, work in radio and television followed, none of it of much consequence.  Finally Richard B. got a job at Macmillan of Canada as a junior editor and where he began to write seriously, first a children's book and then his first novel The Weekend Man.

Interestingly, he writes in the third person...He never says "I", but always "he" or even "the writer".  This type of narration depersonalizes his story and moves the tone to somewhere between that of a novel and an autobiography.  He is a keen observer with a sense of humour which I enjoy.  Richard B's most recent work is A Life Without Words, a beautifully crafted, charming portrait of the writing life. Combining his characteristic wit and self-deprecation with his extraordinary imagination and insight, he has created a deeply affecting memoir that reads like a novel.

Although nominated for several literary awards, it wasn't until 2001 that Wright gained recognition for his award-winning novel, Clara Callan, which led to the republication of many of his earlier works. This novel went on to win three of Canada's major literary awards: The Giller Prize, the Trillium Book Award, and the Governor General's Award. His published works deal with the lives of ordinary people, with a profound balance of depth and sensitivity.

Incidentally there was another writer, the late Richard Nathaniel Wright (September 4, 1908 – November 28, 1960) who was an American author of sometimes controversial novels, short stories, poems, and non-fiction. Much of his literature concerned racial themes, especially those involving the plight of African Americans during the late 19th to mid-20th centuries. Literary critics believe his work helped change race relations in the United States in the mid-20th century.

I am humble in this company and it is fun to fantasize that I am family with something in common, albeit a stretch on both counts.

P.S.:  There have been other Richard Wrights too -- musicians, artists, an English footballer, a Unitarian, a marine painter and an architect, to name but a few.  And to think, none of them know a damn thing about Richard Kenneth Wright, better known as plain old "Dick" the funny guy...Go figure!

NAMES FROM BLACK BOOK REVEALED ON WAR OF BRITAIN ANNIVERSARY

Hitler wanted these ladies dead or alive...

THE DUTCHESS OF ATHOLL

LADY NANCY ASTOR





 

 

What follows may not be everyone’s cup of tea but I publish it on Wrights Lane for its historical significance and for the interest of those who have made a study of our Great World Wars.

 

I write this on Tuesday the 15^th day of September, the anniversary of the Battle of Britain, after gaining access to a brand new, free and exclusive Forces War Records database, containing the full list from Adolph Hitler’s Black Book of “enemies of the state, traitors and undesirables, marked for punishment or death”.

It has been painstakingly translated from the original German by Forces War Records to mark the 75th Anniversary of Battle of Britain Day, and documents the 2,820 individuals who would have been arrested immediately if Hitler’s “Operation Sea Lion” had materialized with the full-scale invasion of the UK. Included in the remarkable list are the real James Bond (aka Conrad Fulke Thomond O’Brien-French) and Britain’s Schindler (aka Major Francis E. Foley).

The Black Book was a popularized name of the Nazi “special wanted arrest list” drawn up for the immediate period after a successful Nazi invasion in 1940. An invasion that was, thankfully, never to be, largely as a result of the Battle of Britain culminating in September that year with air supremacy retained by the British RAF, and the fact that Britain still had the most powerful navy in the world - making a sea and airborne Nazi invasion impossible.

Adolph Hitler with SS General
Walter Schellenberg.

 

The original name in German is “Sonderfahndungsliste GB” which means (es)special(ly)/most wanted list - GB (GB- Gross Britannien - Great Britain).

Similar lists were drawn up and, indeed, used for the USSR, France and Poland among other countries.  Fortunately, the only place in the British Isles that experienced these roundups was the Channel islands, although the rest of the UK may well have had a similar experience had history unfolded differently.

A list of 144 pages containing 2,820 names of politicians, writers, emigres, known intelligence agents, scientists and artists was drawn up by SS General Walter Schellenberg’s office.  Schellenberg was to become the ‘Police’ chief responsible for Great Britain after an invasion and the main Gestapo offices were to be based in Birmingham, England.

The list shows the department of the RSHA (Reichssicherheitshauptamt- Reich security service) which would investigate each individual. This gives insight into what crimes the individual was suspected of having been involved in.  Some of those listed were wanted by multiple departments, although which order would be used to decide which department had priority is unknown.

There seems to be little written evidence that those wanted would have any collective fate as such, although some would obviously have more to fear than others based on what we knew after 1942 of the Holocaust and concentration camps (i.e. Jews, Communists and ex Nazi defectors), however no arrest or incarceration would have been pleasant.

In 1940 there were 450,000 persons of direct Jewish descent in the UK, all of whom would have been considered enemy to the Nazis, and any indirect family connection after that.

Here is a sample of how a few of the names appeared in the Black Book’s wanted list.

Herbert Purcel Astbury , Engineer , From: Leeds Born: 13/Nov/1907 Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVE4 - Counter Espionage -Scandinavia

John Astor Born: 20/May/1886 Wanted by: Amtsgruppe VIG1 - Evaluation of Intelligence Material

*Lady Astor, Anti-German Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVE4 - Counter Espionage -Scandinavia

Aline Sybil Atherton-Smith , From: Ryde Born: 13/Nov/1875 Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVA1 -

*Catherine Duchess Of Atholl Wanted by: Amtsgruppe VIG1 - Evaluation of Intelligence Material

Clement Attlee , Leader of the Labour Party Wanted by: Amtsgruppe II B4 - Marxism / Aliens Police & Security of Frontiers

Clement Richard Attlee , British Army Major Born: 03/Jan/1883 Wanted by: Amtsgruppe VIG1 - Evaluation of Intelligence Material

Werner Karl Rudolf Aue , From: Albion Villas Born: 08/Jan/1898 Occupation: British Vice Ambassador To Holland Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVE4 - Counter Espionage -Scandinavia

Walter Auerbach , From: Hamburg Born: 22/Jul/1905 Occupation: Speaker (Am-Apparat), Historian Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVA2 - Sabotage - Defense, Sabotage - Combat, Political Commissioner of the Police, Political Forgery

Rifat Avigdor , From: Constantinople Born: 09/Aug/1895 Occupation: Jew, Construction Manager.

Reference 286 Wanted by: Amtsgruppe IVB3.

NOTE:  You can click on each individual's name to learn more about them.
 

It is especially interesting to note some of the better-known names from this brief sampling. For instance: Clement Attlee, who seemed to warrant two entries in the book, a British statesman and leader of the Labour Party who instituted the welfare state in Britain; Katherine Dutchess of Atholl, Member of Parliament, political activist and author, and Lady Astor.

*In 1919, Nancy Astor became the first female Member of Parliament elected to the House of Commons. She was not what had been expected. Far from a virago who had suffered for the cause of female suffrage, Lady Astor was already near the center of the ruling society that had for so long resisted the political upheavals of the early 20th century, having married into one of the richest families in the world. She wasn't even British, but the daughter of a famous Virginian family, and fiercely proud of her expatriate ancestry. But her moral drive was strong, and she would utilize her position of privilege and influence to blow a bracing American wind into what she regarded as the stuffy corners of British politics, at times to the annoyance of Winston Churchill.

*A member of the Conservative Party, The Duchess of Atholl was elected to the House of Commons and became the first woman in Scotland to be a sitting member of Parliament. Atholl also took a keen interest in foreign policy and was a strong opponent of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War. She was increasingly concerned about Adolf Hitler and his government in Nazi Germany. She totally opposed the British government's policy of appeasement and in 1938 resigned her seat and sought re-election on this issue. In 1945 Atholl became chairman of the British League for European Freedom.

Just think, these outstanding women and close to 3,000 others listed in Hitler’s Black Book would have faced unimaginable consequences had Germany won the Battle of Britain. A frightening thought!

JUST COLOR ME PURPLE: WHAT COLOR DO YOU LIKE TO WEAR?

The power of color to influence our behaviors and attitudes has been established by science and magnified by literature. Color plays a tremendous role in all of our lives, and has since ancient times, been used as a way of communicating to the world around us. In particular, the color of clothing has long been an important way of conveying special messages.

Of course, everyone is welcome to determine and define the meaning of these colors for themselves, but over the years certain colors have certainly become associated with certain messages in and of themselves.

Many years ago I was interviewing an inspirational speaker of considerable note, when out of the blue she said "That is a prophetic tie that you are wearing!"  That comment took me aback for the moment and when the interview ended I took it upon myself to explore the meaning of purple which was the color of the tie I was wearing at the time.  In fact that particular tie was the favorite in my substantial collection.  Being a color-coordinated kind of guy, I even think that I was wearing a purple shirt.

Here is what subsequent study revealed about the color purple (note the religious significance):

In ancient times, purple was a color of nobility. As early as 1500 BC, royal and wealthy individuals regularly donned purple throughout the Mediterranean region. Purple was particularly valued by these individuals because of its rarity – the dye used to create it was painstakingly extracted from Murexes (or, rock snails). 
 
Within the Christian tradition, purple is the color of Advent, which is a set of weeks before Christmas where each week celebrates an aspect of the coming of Christ.
 
Purple and its tones have long been connected with spirituality, and given their short wavelength are associated strongly with meditation and introspection. Setting aside old stigmas of nobility, one might find it helpful to don purple in times of self-exploration.  I still wear purple sometimes, although it is not easy to find on clothing racks these days.  Not that I'm trying to demonstrate nobility or spirituality...I just like the color.

You may be wondering what color best suits you too, or what message you might be sending by wearing certain colors. Below, is an analysis of several other popular shades coupled with some historical context so you can determine which one is best suited for you.

The symbolism of blue, white, cream, red, green, and purple may serve to evoke a certain emotion, highlight the mood of a specific liturgical season, or simply denote a special occasion.

In Catholic and Protestant traditions, green has become a sort of default color for Sunday services during which no special ceremony is taking place and there is no holiday being observed. Pagans and Wiccans have traditionally worn green to symbolize a close connection to the earth.

Green is a fresh color, and (being in the center of the color spectrum) can create feelings of balance and harmony. It’s also a color associated strongly with rebirth and renewal, so if you’re looking for a bit of seasonal variety green might be the most appropriate choice to don as Winter thaws and Spring warms blossoms back to life.

Blue is not actually a common liturgical color in Christianity. It can symbolize the divine law and is very common in the Jewish faith. It was also a color worn by the lower class in Biblical times. One might note that while Jesus is most commonly depicted wearing white, several artists have clothed him in shades of blue (which may be more historically accurate).

Blue also isn’t terribly common in Wicca. It can symbolize peace and tranquility, like a still water or a clear sky. Seasonally, blue might best capture Summertime. Survey after survey has indicated that blue is the world’s favorite color. Take an informal sampling of the room you’re in right now and we’re sure you’ll find that blue is the most commonly beloved shade. Blue is seen as a highly intellectual and communicative color, in addition to its calming effects and association with peace. In times of stress or turmoil, you might be wise to turn to blue.

In many cultures and faiths, white symbolizes purity and rebirth. It captures the blank slate where the old life has been washed away and the believer is a blank canvas to begin his or her spiritual journey.

White, for the same reasons, is also used frequently for weddings. The couple is coming together to create a new entity for the first time. Some weddings prefer a richer color scheme such as including a cream color rather than bright white. The white and cream colored stoles can be used interchangeably depending on your preferences. White is a tremendously powerful and moving shade. While it can communicate messages of purity and cleanliness, be warned that it can also (particularly if used in excess) overwhelm and send a sometimes harsh sense of sterility.  Another needless warning  -- white gets dirty easily!  But I think that it is a great summer color -- fresh and cool.

The color of fire and blood, red is associated with passion and trials.  It is a strong color, one commonly tied to strength, physicality, and courage. In scientific studies, red has been proven to elevate the pulse of humans … a response likely descended from the fight-or-flight mechanism we would have evolved to activate at the sight of blood.

Above all else, red is a stimulating and exciting color. Wearing red would be a smart choice when your intent is to evoke passion and activity in those around you.


Colors can have tremendous effects over us, but perhaps the most surprising thing you’ll learn as you begin to study their power is not the certain emotions that particular shades evoke… but that colors can move us in such significant ways. For example, in the 80s, a jail dealing with frequent bouts of violence experimented by painting its walls in a particular pinkish hue (Baker-Miller Pink, or “Drunk Tank Pink”) and reportedly saw a total and immediate end to violence outbursts.


As humans, we are visual creatures; despite the intellectual heights we’ve reached, we are still largely products of our environments. Color, while seemingly superficial, should be a facet considered as you consider what to wear, what colors to paint your room, or even what products to purchase.

TRUST ME, NEWSPAPERS DO NOT PUBLISH NEWS STORIES DESIGNED TO SELL PAPERS...IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

I have always been uncomfortable with perception, especially as it pertains to public perception. The trouble is that it would be taken with a grain of salt if it were not for the destructiveness that wrong perceptions of people and situations can cause. What is amusing is that people are convinced of the truth of their perceptions and act on them accordingly, despite the inaccurate and incomplete way the brain works to form these perceptions. The sad reality is that most perceptions are very distorted by the minds of those who generally have axes to grind.

Because of my professional background, the public perception that sticks in my craw the most is the commonly held belief that newspapers publish stories to "sell papers".

In a recent study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 80 percent of the public said  they believe "journalists chase sensational stories because they think it will sell papers, not because they think it is important news."  Another 85 percent of the public believed that "newspapers frequently over-dramatize some news stories just to sell more papers."

Editor Dick at his news desk, circa 1968.

I have to ask, did the study lump all "newspapers" -- daily, weekly, monthly, national, regional, local, broadsheet, tabloid, including trash and gossip rags that blatantly sensationalize stories that attract attention when displayed in the news rack?  That important piece of information was not addressed in the release of the study; neither was the exact wording of the study questions requiring only "yes" or "no" answers i.e. "Do you believe..."

Take it from someone who has been an editor of four daily newspapers in Canada and an 11-year member of the Canadian Press News Study Team in two provinces...Both of the concluding study statements are based on public perception, which is completely unfounded and misleading.  And I'll tell you why.

There are four basic departments in every newspaper, big and small -- news, advertising, circulation and production.  The departments work independent of each other.  As a managing editor, it was always my practice, however to meet with department heads from time to time to get a feeling for how our product was being accepted/perceived in the community.  If we were falling short in the presentation of news, I wanted to hear about it and was prepared to implement corrective measures if warranted.  But never, and I repeat never, was I influenced or motivated to run a story just to sell papers.  Likewise, the rise and fall of newspaper circulation was never reflected in my pay cheque.

Admittedly, more than once I heard: "That was a good story you guys ran the other day.  I don't pick up your paper every day, but if you continue that kind of coverage I'll become a regular subscriber."  Conversely and historically, when someone does not agree with what they have read in a newspaper, their first knee-jerk reaction is to cancel their subscription, thinking that they are sending a message.

I, like most editors, knew all too well the folly of printing agenda-driven news stories.  Any good editor has his/her ear to the ground and is cognizant of the news requirements of the community and the public's right to know.  What really turns an editor's crank, is a legitimate breaking news story that has potential to scoop the competition and win readership favor.  A story that will really grab attention is the ultimate goal, not the possibility of selling a few extra copies of the paper.

Of course, any managing editor worth his or her salt knows full well the value of giving their advertising and circulation departments a lively, quality news package that will enhance ad sales and circulation marketing promotions.

Newspapers make their money from display and classified advertising and paid subscriptions which cover the cost of delivery.  Extra individual on-the-street sales of a particular edition in any given day are negligible and a mere pittance in the overall financial scheme of things.  People simply do not selectively buy newspapers because of a spectacularly exaggerated news story or one that is colorfully illustrated -- and editors know that.  Editors, rather, are constantly pre-occupied with news judgment and news play in their papers.  Always faced with snap decisions based on looming print deadlines, they win some and they lose some.  The armchair reading public does not always agree with the tone of reportage, the placement of news articles and (heaven help us) oversight of what is believed to be a worthy event or pet cause.  These are facts of life in all forms of media.

While editors do not intentionally set out to sell papers, you can bet your boots that they are subjected to economic pressure. I lost count of number of times I was threatened with the cancellation of advertising because of disagreement over certain news coverage.  I have had one hundred dollar bills thrown on my desk by a disgruntled member of the public wanting to suppress a certain court story involving a family member and I have been threatened with legal action, once by a judge and another time by a police chief. I have had meals out with my family interrupted by overly zealous proponents of political agendas.  I have refused liquor delivered to my home by a candidate hoping to win my support at election time. The Rt. Hon. John George Diefenbaker objected to my handling of several news releases from his office and went so far as to say that he would have me fired next time he saw the newspaper's owner, his "good friend" Lord Thompson of Fleet.  Dief also complained that I was giving inappropriate coverage to the Liberal candidate in the federal election of 1972.  The Liberals, on the other hand, insisted that I always gave Diefenbaker top billing.  Perception rearing its ugly head once again.

John Diefenbaker was extremely congenial, especially
after I published a tribute to him on his 80th birthday.

It all went with the territory.  While experiencing the extremes of frustration and amusement, I did not let such incidents deter me from doing the job that was expected of me.  I had an intense sense of purpose in those days.  If I could not stand the heat I could always get out of the kitchen which is exactly what I did in due course, just a little the worse for wear but a much wiser human being.

An editor's responsibility is always to present the day's news in the most balanced and fair way possible. The mandate is unbiased, fearless recording of fact, but it must be demonstrable fact with responsible sources to support it so that the public can arrive at an informed consensus.  Accuracy is fundamental.  Reporters are constantly reminded to refrain from incorporating personal opinions in their news copy.  Accurate back grounding and authoritative interpretation are essential to reader understanding of complicated subjects.  Editorial and op-ed pages are reserved for the sole purpose of opinion commentary and letters to the editor.

Ask any veteran reporter and I guarantee they will confirm that they have never been instructed to write a story designed to sell newspapers and their copy has never been edited for that purpose.

I quote here from the Canadian Press Style Guide that is followed religiously by all reputable and main stream media in Canada:

"The question of what news is can often be answered objectively -- disasters, major political developments, serious crimes -- but just as often subjectively.  The experience and training of reporters, rewrite staff, desk editors and supervisors are the front line of news judgment.  They must be familiar with the interests and concerns of Canadians, both nationally and regionally, as reflected in the news pages of daily newspapers...

Good taste is a constant consideration.  Some important news is essentially repellent.  Its handling need not be."  Note: CP is our national news-gathering co-operative covering important Canadian news for its more than 100 daily member newspapers and, through affiliated companies, for broadcasters and a wide variety of magazines, special-interest publications and private organizations wanting instant information.

Let me explain briefly how a newspaper news room is structured and how it works in reality.

Reporters and correspondents do a lot of research work in order to gather the facts. They must also find out which news is important and worth reporting and which information can be left out.
A newspaper employs various kinds of reporters. A beat reporter covers certain issues and topics, mostly over a longer period of time. He or she may report on a crime and the trial that follows. An education reporter follows topics related to schools and universities. Other beat reporters cover topics like fashion or science. Then, of course, you have the ever popular sports pages and writers that specialize in hockey, baseball, football and basketball.  General assignment reporters cover any story that they are assigned by the editor. Sometimes reporters spend months trying to get stories on corruption and other wrong doings. Stringers, as they are called, do not work for a paper, but send them stories regularly for a set fee.

Large newspapers often have offices in other cities or countries . Foreign correspondents work in these offices and can send news stories to the newspaper very quickly.  Newspapers cannot have reporters and correspondents everywhere in the world. They get part of their information from news or wire services like the Canadian Press. Wire services collect information from reporters all over the world and relay it via computers and satellites to newspapers. Among the largest news services are United Press International and Associated Press (both USA). Other services include Reuters (UK), Agence France Press (France) and ITAR-TASS (Russia).

So, if I haven't convinced you by now of newspaper professionalism and the fact that there is no correlation between news coverage and the almighty dollar, I guess I never will.  I fully expect also, that there will be those who will say that I am naturally biased on this subject...and I readily admit that is the case.  False perceptions and con cocked studies offend what is left of this old editor's integrity and sense of loyalty to newspapering.  Equally troublesome is the popular tendency to blame "the media" for all that is wrong in society today. 

All I can say by means of conclusion is that the truth often hurts, but don't shoot the messenger!