Homecoming Mum Controversy Rocks Grapevine?
20. Nov, 2009 
8 Comments
The fire storm began on November 4th, when this article was published in the local Southlake, Colleyville, and Grapevine newspapers. The author of the article Dr. Cindy Ryan suggested that homecoming mums should be banned and that people should feed children in Africa instead.
This follow up article by Dr. Ryan was written on November 18th highlighting many of the colorful emails she received from around the world. She said that most of the emails were overwhelmingly positive, but quoted some of the negative ones as well.
Here is our favorite one:
“You are what is wrong with society,” one said.
Then a follow up article appeared on NBCDFW.com again sharing most of the story. The author summarized the controversy this way:
If nothing else, surely Ryan’s article makes everyone think about how, even in a down economy, we still have places we can cut excesses and help those less fortunate. Or maybe not.
Here’s the problem with the original article and the ensuing controversy:
1. With apologies to Dr. Ryan in advance, people work very hard for their money and can and should spend it however they want. To us, that is the condescending part of the original article – “Ban Mums, Feed Hungry Kids Instead.” Perhaps a better approach would have been to say, “Spend a little less this year on your homecoming mum and donate the rest to a worth cause or charity of your choice.”
It would come across as more of a nudge than the shove approach Dr. Ryan employed.
2. Singling out mums ignores the thousands of other excesses taken daily in our society. Why don’t we all grab a sign and head down to our local Starbucks, “That $5 you spent on your Frappuccino could have fed a starving African kid for a month.”
Then we can head over to Best Buy, “That 65-inch flat screen you just bought could have fed an Army of Kids.”
Then we can drop by the next wedding hosted at Dr. Ryan’s church. “This wedding could have fed…. ”
I think you get the idea.
3. “Ban a Mum, Save an African kid” sounds too much like a bad country and western song. Big and Rich might have cringed a little had they heard about the article.
Our economy thrives on the $5 frappuccino, the 65-inch flat screen, and to some extent the $250 homecoming mum. It is important to note that Dr. Ryan’s article had good intentions; no matter how arrogant it seems to some.
With the holidays fast approaching, perhaps we should all think about the best way to spend that next hard earned dollar.
Note: The writer of this article is not a florist or a hungry child in Africa, but his opinion may or may not be slanted anyway.
If you have an opinion on this article, please feel free to leave a comment below.
No related posts.
I agree with most of your points. We do live in a very materialistic society.
From a hard working florists.. I say thank you for bringing to light what florists have been trying to convey to Dr. Ryan.
Homecoming mums are not the reason why children are hungry. Plain and simple!
Our economy and capitalism depends upon “spending” – Keeping small business America up and running.
It is no longer a debate only about Homecoming Mums, but about every luxury that we have.
Starbucks frappuccino is the perfect example. I buy them… should I? Should I save that money for hungry children? I don’t know the answers – or where to draw the line.
In my own family we do not drive new cars or have cable TV. We do give reqularly to many worth charities. We all make choices.
The list of luxury or “unneccessary” items is very, very long – So I am not sure why Dr. Ryan chose florists and other homecoming retailers to attack.
I can assure you that most florists are very caring, giving people.
Perhaps if Dr. Ryan had worked with florists and challenged us as an industry to help her get the word out about hungry children, we could have helped her with her mission. Instead of building a bridge – she created a gap – as now we stand in defense of an industry that we hold dear to our hearts.
One word comes to mind, “reactionary”. There is no end to the amount of people willing to tell everyone else what to do, how to do it, and when. These people rarely think things through. I read in the comments of people being out of jobs and needing food. What about the people working in the florist industry and small mum shops or the people who make the products for the mums, such as ribbons, bows, bells, trinkets, etc.? Fortunately they have a job. Most of them are supporting families. Many probably give to charity on their own. Most of these are small businesses and small business is the engine of this economy. This same economy creates the wealth necessary to fund charitable organizations. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. The amount of aid they supply to the impoverished is equal to the overall income of several small countries. You don’t improve the quality of life for anyone by tearing someone elses life down. You can’t create wealth for the poor by taking away jobs from others. You could say the same for funeral wreaths, car washes, movie rentals, haircuts, clothes, new cars, and pretty much everything else we purchase from flower gardens to breast implants. It’s just a matter of how many businesses you are willing to destroy in the process, and how many people you intend to put out of work. In a time when unemployment is at double digits, it seems ludicrous to suggest the destruction of yet another market. Maybe we could begin holding church services outdoors and use the money normally spent on a church building to feed the poor. If I recall correctly, Jesus gave most of his surmons outdoors.
Thank you all for your well thought out replies.
Obviously, the author of the banning of mums idea struck a chord with many small business owners.
Maybe she didn’t mean to single out small business owners, but that was the result.
“people work very hard for their money and can and should spend it however they want.” Really? The reason people can work hard, have jobs where they can work, have the health, intelligence, etc. to do anything is all a gift from God. Buy what is needed, not to impress or make yourself feel better.
Dr. Ryan is not trashing or even discouraging small business. She is talking about a specific example of excess. Mums are not the problem. What they have become is the problem. Coffee, cars, church buildings are not the problem, but when they become larger than necessary that is a problem.
Nonetheless, all of us, myself included, do lots of things that are, at best, questionable, or, at worst, terrible. What may have been lost in all of this is that God still loves us no matter what.
Hi Michael,
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I just don’t think its my place or anyones to tell people what they should do with their money. That’s just me.
Joe
intersting article. I love the controversy.
I agree, I like the controversy too! I think its a little pathetic, a Dr. making you feel guilty about the way you spend your money. I can only imagine that Dr. drives something like a Ford Focus, yeah right.