We Share Interests

Random Access

April 8th, 2017  |  Published in FEATURE, LITERATURE & VOCAB

| STAFF — I have a lot of thoughts. Some randomly pop into my head. They are influenced by myriad sources. They come. They go. Some are resolved. Some aren’t. This is a list:

April, 8, 2017: Tonight I was informed about a “president” of a cultural association in Vancouver who does not come from the cultural background on which the association is based. I do come from this cultural background and people like me (many of them leaders of industry and occupiers of authority positions) make up half or more of this city’s population. Nonetheless, somehow he found himself as the current “president” of this group. Really? None of us wanted the role? That’s fishy. While fishy, that’s not the issue, nor is that he comes from my father’s generation. This is: he was insistent on using “integrate” as a key word in that organization’s mission statement. There would be no discussion, no consideration of alternative wording. He is the “president.” He is going to operate his way — the wrong way. He is 100% confident that “We must integrate these people.” is an appropriate core belief to hold. In other words, do not allow the people he is attempting to control to embrace who they are. To him, they must follow the ways of a designated cultural group, the one he comes from, not the one almost everyone in his cultural organization and myself come from. “Integrate” is not a 2017 Canadian word and certainly not one a real Vancouverite or respectable 21st century human being would use to promote community-building, you pathetically inept “president.” Bringing people together is not done with a word like “integrate” which implies forced change. It is accomplished through identification of common ground and organization of relevant programming through tactful marketing. Talk about change. That’s something you need, “pres.”To be continued.

April 27, 2017: While sitting at my desk, my middle-aged coworker said something. I responded. I thought about if I were to tell someone about the exchange how I would refer to this person. Would I say “This girl at work”? No way. No. I would be more comfortable with “There’s this woman at work.” And then I thought, at what point does a person cross that line? When do I cross that line and decide the connotations I want will not be associated with youth.

April 29, 2017: As I finished packing up the Persian-inspired pilaf I would take over to a pot-luck, I thought of a friend of mine who is planning to produce a podcast. While I have full confidence that she will fulfill this goal, I wondered about those who are “all-talk.” Ok. There are those all-talk, no action. But then then there are those all-talk, delegators of action. These are leaders. So it’s ok to be all-talk, but if you are, you better have someone to execute your vision. If not — just a dreamer, and when a world is this broken, we need people to fix it.


Comments are closed.


Help keep this site alive.

Our Visitors

Flag Counter


| Sticky | A Call to Social Scientists - Segmenting Population & the Inadequacy of English

Featured Phrase

gallimaufry \gal-uh-MAW-free\ - noun

a heterogeneous mixture : jumble

The essay collection covers a gallimaufry of subjects, from stamp collecting to Portuguese cooking.

"Upon entering the gallery, one of the first things that catches my eye is a gallimaufry of vibrant, oversized collages."
— Rosalie Spear, The Las Vegas Weekly, 29 Mar. 2016