Barack Obama’s speech “A More Perfect Union” on Tuesday March 18 both addressed some concerns about his candidacy and raised some important questions regarding the place of race and ethnicity in the collective psyche of this country. In that speech he spoke extensively about his relationship with Rev Jeremiah Wright, Jr., his pastor and father figure, whose comments regarding the United States of America and its sad history of racism have been played and re-played (out of context) in the media and on the Internet. In addition to raising important issues around race, Rev. Wright’s comments raise some important questions about the role of religion, particularly Christian faith, in our public and cultural life. Because while many refer to Rev. Wright as a “firebrand” and “controversial,” in the Christian Biblical tradition Rev. Wright is called a prophet.
In the Biblical tradition, the prophet was often one who challenged the status quo and those who benefited from the oppression and deprivation of others. Prophets often said things that people didn’t want to hear but needed to hear, such as when the prophet Nathan confronted King David for his wanton abuse of power and position (II Samuel 12). For their remarks prophets were often imprisoned (Jeremiah), exiled (Amos), denigrated in public discourse (Hosea) or killed (John the Baptist). They were often considered eccentric (Ezekiel) and suffered physical and social isolation (Elijah). Thus, prophets tended to live unnaturally shortened lives. Jesus himself referred to the frequent persecutions experienced by the prophets, and commended his followers to take heart from their example when they too came under fire (Matthew 5.11-12).
Somehow in our Western Culture many have forgotten and neglected to appreciate the role of the prophet in our midst. In his book, The Devaluing of America, former Education Secretary William Bennett, a devout Roman Catholic, criticizes pastors and priests who opposed U.S. policies on Central America and the Persian Gulf War I for being “out of step” with their congregations, while at the same time arguing for a proper place for religion to be discussed in public schools. He states that “American culture and American greatness – perhaps more accurately American goodness – draw strength and direction from the Judeo-Christian tradition” (p. 208).Yet a few pages later he laments “the chasm that now separates the values of many church leaders from those of the American people (p. 223). The implication of these statements is that the role of religion is to support the actions and values of our culture and not to challenge them. It is this same underlying assumption that has led so many political leaders, media commentators, and regular citizens to consider Rev. Wright’s views “out of bounds.” Apparently, despite our Judeo-Christian heritage, we don’t tolerate our prophets any better than our Biblical forbears.
Bennett, like many others of his perspective, in his book refers to the legacy of Martin Luther King, and quotes his “I Have a Dream Speech,” focusing on the famous line that people should be judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Some contemporary commentators, like Bennett, use these words even to suggest that Dr. King would not support today’s affirmative action policies that make a race or gender a factor in hiring or admissions policies. Yet, what is conveniently forgotten is the fact that when Dr. King uttered those famous words, he was considered a far greater threat than Rev. Wright ever will be, to the point that he was constantly being shadowed by the FBI and numerous hate groups.
Moreover, when King’s 1963 speech is intoned, it is often done without remembering the later King, who criticized U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam and challenged the basic assumptions underlying U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. On April 4, 1967 over the objections of friends and foes alike, King delivered a sermon entitled “Beyond Vietnam” at Riverside Church in New York. In that sermon he came out forcefully against U.S. policy in Vietnam. He said that the war was poisoning American’s soul and that the violence in urban ghettoes was tied to the violence in Vietnam. He warned that if the nation did not reverse its policy in Vietnam, “we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”
For these words King was vilified in the press and lost his access to Lyndon Johnson at the White House. Like Jeremiah Wright, Martin Luther King spoke words the nation neither felt willing nor ready to hear. Time has sanitized our view of King, so that now he is a national hero. How quickly we forget the angst he created in our national soul, so that we rejected his words and impugned his character. How quickly we forget that the truth of his words was not readily accepted and only much later was seen as justified.
In fact one could walk through the course of U.S. history and see numerous instances of prophets who said words that in retrospect we realize the nation needed to hear, but at the time were labeled as firebrands and malcontents: Samuel Adams, Frederick Douglass, Elijah Lovejoy, Sojourner Truth, W.E.B Dubois, Dorothy Day, Betty Freidan, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Myles Horton, Shirley Chisholm, and Ralph Nader. Many other names could be added to the list. The point is that often it is the prophets who challenge us to move beyond the complacency of the status quo to a higher purpose.
On this Easter weekend, we remember the death of Jesus on a Roman cross on a hill outside Jerusalem. He was not killed because people saw him as “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” He was killed because his words and his actions called attention to injustice, hypocrisy and immorality at all levels of society. Like those before and after him, Jesus was a prophet. Those of us who embrace Christian faith also consider him to be a savior, but that does not diminish his role as a prophet who paid an ultimate price. Prophets still rise from time to time (and not always Christian, by the way). That is at the heart and genius of the Judeo-Christian tradition. So when a preacher or some other outspoken person says things that cause our ears to burn and our stomachs to churn, perhaps we need to listen; we may be hearing the words of a prophet.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Was Right
I was troubled to learn that the Associated Press reported that Barack Obama had “denounced” remarks made by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and had removed Wright from his role as his spiritual advisor. According to the Associated Press, Rev. Wright made “inflammatory remarks” following the Sept 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks and was characterized as having “railed against the United States and accused the country of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.”
The first thing that confused me was why was Obama being held accountable for things his pastor said. From my years as a pastor I know there were many times I said things that my parishioners disagreed with. Part of my pastoral role was to provoke thought, and sometimes we simply had an honest difference of opinion. I, not they, was responsible for my views. Second, “the “inflammatory remarks” made by Rev Wright were part of a larger sermon, but the rest of that sermon is not reported. So we don’t know the full context of his remarks. However, third, from what I can tell, Rev. Wright spoke the truth.
The statement in question (as reported by the AP), spoken on the Sunday following the 9/11 attacks, was as follows:
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," … "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
I suspect that in the rest of his sermon, Rev. Wright, whom I have heard speak and whose ministry is well known, expressed remorse for the families of the victims. However, what this statement highlights is that what happened on 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. U.S. foreign policy has placed the United States on the wrong side of many actions, and millions of innocent people have died at the hands of our bombs, and still are. While what happened on 9/11 was a heinous act of vengeance, it makes sense in the larger cycle of violence of which we are a part.
On the Sunday after 9/11 the pastor of the church that I was attending talked about a conversation she had with a Kenyan seminary student. The Kenyan told the American woman, “Now you have experienced and know what I and millions of other people around the world have suffered for decades.” We had become victims of the same violence that had so often been used against others, often with our consent and our weapons.
About six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Phyllis Cunningham, an adult educator, from Northern Illinois University spoke at a conference I attended in Austin, Texas. She noted that at that time American citizens were asking “Why would anyone want to attack the U.S. like they did on 9/11?” Dr. Cunningham told the gathered group of educators, “If people do not know the answer to that question, then we are not doing our job.” While thousands of U.S. citizens were directly or indirectly victimized by the 9/11 attacks, all of us were either unconscious or willing participants in a cycle of violence where often our weapons and our military were perpetrators rather than victims. While we denounce terrorist organizations like Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, in the past our government has supported repressive regimes like South Africa, Israel, Guatemala, and throughout Latin America. This past week, the Congress failed to override a presidential veto on a bill that would have prevented the United States from using acts of torture we so freely condemn others for. In Rev. Wright’s colloquial expression “the chickens came home to roost.”
I am reminded of a line uttered by Jack Nicholson in the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men.” Nicholson plays Col. Nathan Jessup, commander of the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay base on the tip of Cuba. Lt. Daniel Kafee (played by Tom Cruise) investigates the suspicious death of one of Jessup’s men, and eventually Col. Jessup is brought before a military tribunal. At a climactic moment in the film Lt. Kafee demands that Col. Jessup tell the truth of what happened under his command. In anger and defiance Jessup/Nicholson screams: “The truth! You can’t handle the truth!”
The problem with many Americans is that we can not handle the truth in Rev. Wright’s words. We would rather continue in our self-deception that we are innocent victims rather than participants in a cycle of violence that shattered us on 9/11, and to which we continue to contribute in our current “surge” in Iraq and elsewhere. Violence that kills anyone anywhere, especially innocent civilians, is tragic and regrettable. However, let us not delude ourselves in to thinking that somehow the violence of the present is not linked to the violence of past, and that our continued participation in the violence in the present will not contribute to more innocent victims of violence in the future. We operate under the illusion that violence will end the violence, when in fact all it does is keep the cycle going.
Senator Obama, for political reasons I am sure, chose to distance himself from the obvious truth his pastor spoke. Perhaps it was because he truly disagreed with Rev. Wright’s statement, or maybe it was because he would rather continue in the cycle of violence, rather than grapple with the truth. In any case, his remarks are disappointing and regrettable because in my view Rev Wright was right.
The first thing that confused me was why was Obama being held accountable for things his pastor said. From my years as a pastor I know there were many times I said things that my parishioners disagreed with. Part of my pastoral role was to provoke thought, and sometimes we simply had an honest difference of opinion. I, not they, was responsible for my views. Second, “the “inflammatory remarks” made by Rev Wright were part of a larger sermon, but the rest of that sermon is not reported. So we don’t know the full context of his remarks. However, third, from what I can tell, Rev. Wright spoke the truth.
The statement in question (as reported by the AP), spoken on the Sunday following the 9/11 attacks, was as follows:
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," … "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
I suspect that in the rest of his sermon, Rev. Wright, whom I have heard speak and whose ministry is well known, expressed remorse for the families of the victims. However, what this statement highlights is that what happened on 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. U.S. foreign policy has placed the United States on the wrong side of many actions, and millions of innocent people have died at the hands of our bombs, and still are. While what happened on 9/11 was a heinous act of vengeance, it makes sense in the larger cycle of violence of which we are a part.
On the Sunday after 9/11 the pastor of the church that I was attending talked about a conversation she had with a Kenyan seminary student. The Kenyan told the American woman, “Now you have experienced and know what I and millions of other people around the world have suffered for decades.” We had become victims of the same violence that had so often been used against others, often with our consent and our weapons.
About six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Phyllis Cunningham, an adult educator, from Northern Illinois University spoke at a conference I attended in Austin, Texas. She noted that at that time American citizens were asking “Why would anyone want to attack the U.S. like they did on 9/11?” Dr. Cunningham told the gathered group of educators, “If people do not know the answer to that question, then we are not doing our job.” While thousands of U.S. citizens were directly or indirectly victimized by the 9/11 attacks, all of us were either unconscious or willing participants in a cycle of violence where often our weapons and our military were perpetrators rather than victims. While we denounce terrorist organizations like Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, in the past our government has supported repressive regimes like South Africa, Israel, Guatemala, and throughout Latin America. This past week, the Congress failed to override a presidential veto on a bill that would have prevented the United States from using acts of torture we so freely condemn others for. In Rev. Wright’s colloquial expression “the chickens came home to roost.”
I am reminded of a line uttered by Jack Nicholson in the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men.” Nicholson plays Col. Nathan Jessup, commander of the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay base on the tip of Cuba. Lt. Daniel Kafee (played by Tom Cruise) investigates the suspicious death of one of Jessup’s men, and eventually Col. Jessup is brought before a military tribunal. At a climactic moment in the film Lt. Kafee demands that Col. Jessup tell the truth of what happened under his command. In anger and defiance Jessup/Nicholson screams: “The truth! You can’t handle the truth!”
The problem with many Americans is that we can not handle the truth in Rev. Wright’s words. We would rather continue in our self-deception that we are innocent victims rather than participants in a cycle of violence that shattered us on 9/11, and to which we continue to contribute in our current “surge” in Iraq and elsewhere. Violence that kills anyone anywhere, especially innocent civilians, is tragic and regrettable. However, let us not delude ourselves in to thinking that somehow the violence of the present is not linked to the violence of past, and that our continued participation in the violence in the present will not contribute to more innocent victims of violence in the future. We operate under the illusion that violence will end the violence, when in fact all it does is keep the cycle going.
Senator Obama, for political reasons I am sure, chose to distance himself from the obvious truth his pastor spoke. Perhaps it was because he truly disagreed with Rev. Wright’s statement, or maybe it was because he would rather continue in the cycle of violence, rather than grapple with the truth. In any case, his remarks are disappointing and regrettable because in my view Rev Wright was right.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Why I hate to be called a “liberal”
Most people who hear my views on various issues (such as those expressed in this blog), refer to me as “liberal.” I have always bristled at being labeled with that term, just as I have refrained from using its opposite “conservative” when referring to those who disagree with me. While sometimes labels can serve to properly categorize people’s views, the words “liberal” and “conservative,” especially when applied to a person’s social or political (and even theological views), are often used as a way of dismissing a person’s perspective altogether because they are one of “them” and not one of “us.” I hate being considered one of “them,” and conversely, I am uncomfortable being allowed into the club of “us.”
This disdain for the conservative/liberal labeling was reinforced recently when I read William Bennett’s book, The Devaluing of America: The Fight for our Culture and Our Children. William Bennett was the drug czar in the Bush I administration and chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and Education Secretary under President Reagan. The blurb on the book’s back cover referred to him as “one of our leading conservatives.” I was interested in reading the book because since he was education secretary and even now, Bennett has been one of the leading opponents of multicultural education. I had read his Book of Virtues, and found it uplifting – a group of stories illustrating the basic human virtues necessary for civilized living - even so, I expected that Devaluing of America would stoke my ire.
However, what I found was surprising. I found that I agreed with William Bennett on many things, partially agreed on others, and vehemently disagreed on others. For instance, I was very impressed with the strong case he made for the idea that education does not simply impart knowledge, but also shapes character. His concern for the plight of the poor and impoverished was palpable, and his comprehensive approach to addressing the drug crisis in the U.S (law enforcement, interdiction of drugs, provision of treatment, education for prevention) was right on. On the issue of racism, I think he recognized the depth of the problem, but like many privileged, white Americans (of which I would also count myself), he failed to appreciate the social, psychological, and economic legacy of racism and the continuing effects centuries of slavery and institutional racism; his answer to racial problems was basically “get over it” and let’s be a color blind society. I don’t think it’s that simple. In education his concern that students learn and know the classics of Western Civilization is admirable, but in an increasingly diverse society a multicultural perspective is absolutely vital. His biggest blind spot in my view is the assumption that the culture of the US should not and can not change despite the fact that we are becoming increasingly diverse; he believes that all folks should assimilate to the basically European cultural framework and belief system bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, and that our culture should and can not expand to incorporate the views and beliefs of others.
However, “the culture wars,” as he calls this last issue, is the only thing William Bennett and I clearly and completely disagreed on. With the rest we were in varying degrees of agreement and disagreement, and he is a “conservative” and I am a “liberal.” Such labels become meaningless when you break it down. I believe William Bennett to be an intelligent, honorable and reasonable person, not the pariah that some folks might say he is. Had I accepted that characterization, I might not have read his book, and considered his views. It seems to me that this kind of meaningful dialogue has been largely lost in our social and political dialogue in part because of this tendency to label and therefore dismiss folks.
Unfortunately and paradoxically for me, Bennett does freely use the labels of “conservative” and “liberal" when referring to his friends and opponents. Now in part this is due to the fact that he served in government and wrote this book (1992) during the Reagan era when “liberal” and “conservative" bashing was rampant, as it is now. Furthermore, time has moderated some of his views; what seemed "conservative" 20 years ago is more mainstream today. Because of his labeling I almost didn’t get past the first chapter where he mercilessly criticizes the “liberal cultural elite” (particularly college professors) for their support of the Sandinistas in the mid 80’s, their opposition to Persian Gulf War I, and their criticism of his decisions to restrict funding on certain art projects when he was chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. He refers to this liberal cultural elite as “skeptical and mistrustful of American Society" …and “marked by alienation, suspicion and doubt.” He accuses them of rejecting “American ideals.” As one who opposed US policy in Nicaragua and who marched against the Persian Gulf War I, I would like to be given more credit than simply being skeptical and mistrustful. I would like to be thought of one who exercised the American ideal of free speech. I would like to have my ideas and concerns taken seriously. That is why I hate labels, and why continued to read Bill Bennett’s book despite those opening salvos, and I’m glad I did.
Depending on the issue I may be “conservative” (morals in education, family values, religion), “liberal” (immigration, gun control policy), moderate (drug policy) or downright radical (economic policy; the political system). If you can come up with a label for that, I’ll accept it. Otherwise, leave your labels at home, and let’s just talk and listen to each other.
This disdain for the conservative/liberal labeling was reinforced recently when I read William Bennett’s book, The Devaluing of America: The Fight for our Culture and Our Children. William Bennett was the drug czar in the Bush I administration and chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and Education Secretary under President Reagan. The blurb on the book’s back cover referred to him as “one of our leading conservatives.” I was interested in reading the book because since he was education secretary and even now, Bennett has been one of the leading opponents of multicultural education. I had read his Book of Virtues, and found it uplifting – a group of stories illustrating the basic human virtues necessary for civilized living - even so, I expected that Devaluing of America would stoke my ire.
However, what I found was surprising. I found that I agreed with William Bennett on many things, partially agreed on others, and vehemently disagreed on others. For instance, I was very impressed with the strong case he made for the idea that education does not simply impart knowledge, but also shapes character. His concern for the plight of the poor and impoverished was palpable, and his comprehensive approach to addressing the drug crisis in the U.S (law enforcement, interdiction of drugs, provision of treatment, education for prevention) was right on. On the issue of racism, I think he recognized the depth of the problem, but like many privileged, white Americans (of which I would also count myself), he failed to appreciate the social, psychological, and economic legacy of racism and the continuing effects centuries of slavery and institutional racism; his answer to racial problems was basically “get over it” and let’s be a color blind society. I don’t think it’s that simple. In education his concern that students learn and know the classics of Western Civilization is admirable, but in an increasingly diverse society a multicultural perspective is absolutely vital. His biggest blind spot in my view is the assumption that the culture of the US should not and can not change despite the fact that we are becoming increasingly diverse; he believes that all folks should assimilate to the basically European cultural framework and belief system bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, and that our culture should and can not expand to incorporate the views and beliefs of others.
However, “the culture wars,” as he calls this last issue, is the only thing William Bennett and I clearly and completely disagreed on. With the rest we were in varying degrees of agreement and disagreement, and he is a “conservative” and I am a “liberal.” Such labels become meaningless when you break it down. I believe William Bennett to be an intelligent, honorable and reasonable person, not the pariah that some folks might say he is. Had I accepted that characterization, I might not have read his book, and considered his views. It seems to me that this kind of meaningful dialogue has been largely lost in our social and political dialogue in part because of this tendency to label and therefore dismiss folks.
Unfortunately and paradoxically for me, Bennett does freely use the labels of “conservative” and “liberal" when referring to his friends and opponents. Now in part this is due to the fact that he served in government and wrote this book (1992) during the Reagan era when “liberal” and “conservative" bashing was rampant, as it is now. Furthermore, time has moderated some of his views; what seemed "conservative" 20 years ago is more mainstream today. Because of his labeling I almost didn’t get past the first chapter where he mercilessly criticizes the “liberal cultural elite” (particularly college professors) for their support of the Sandinistas in the mid 80’s, their opposition to Persian Gulf War I, and their criticism of his decisions to restrict funding on certain art projects when he was chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. He refers to this liberal cultural elite as “skeptical and mistrustful of American Society" …and “marked by alienation, suspicion and doubt.” He accuses them of rejecting “American ideals.” As one who opposed US policy in Nicaragua and who marched against the Persian Gulf War I, I would like to be given more credit than simply being skeptical and mistrustful. I would like to be thought of one who exercised the American ideal of free speech. I would like to have my ideas and concerns taken seriously. That is why I hate labels, and why continued to read Bill Bennett’s book despite those opening salvos, and I’m glad I did.
Depending on the issue I may be “conservative” (morals in education, family values, religion), “liberal” (immigration, gun control policy), moderate (drug policy) or downright radical (economic policy; the political system). If you can come up with a label for that, I’ll accept it. Otherwise, leave your labels at home, and let’s just talk and listen to each other.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Hope Vs. Realism
Today in church, the pastor was talking about hope, and I got to thinking about the current knock on Barack Obama’s message of hope. Hillary Clinton and John McCain attack Obama as simply having nice-sounding words with no substance. McCain and Clinton have a legitimate right to challenge Obama to speak specifically and concretely about his potential plans and policies. However, underneath their political jabs is the troubling and cynical assumption that there is no such think as hope, because one must be "realistic!" To the "realist," hope seems like a pipdream. Given this cynical attitude, it is no wonder Obama entitled his latest book The Audacity of Hope; to purveyors of American real politick Obama’s message is an affront.
Over the last couple of years I have been studying the life and work of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator who developed a method of literacy training that enabled thousands of illiterate campesinos to read in a matter of months. His methods were so successful that the Brazilian government imprisoned him for sedition, and eventually exiled him. The ruling elite didn’t trust someone who would teach folks how to read, because then those same folks were able figure out that their so-called leaders were working in ways that limited their opportunities and caused their suffering. Freire spent his 20 year exile traveling the globe sharing his message and educational philosophy. Late in life when the Brazilian government changed hands, he was allowed back into the country where he held a government post as Education Minister until his death in 1997.
Throughout much of his life Freire sought to raise the prospects of the poorest of the world’s poor by giving them one of the most valuable tools for advancing one’s station in life: the ability to read. His work came to light in the English speaking world with the English translation of his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1970.Freire understood that what he was doing had political implications, and thus he taught his students to not only read the word, but also “read the world” and the forces that oppressed them. Through this process of consciouness raising, Freire's method empowered poor folks to challenge their oppressors and change their conditions.
Despite his personal struggles and the powerful opposition he faced, Paulo Freire was always known as a joyful man full of hope. Thus, it is fitting that one of his last writings was entitled Pedagogy of Hope, which was a retrospective on the working out of ideas expressed decades before in Pedagogy of Oppressed.
Denis Collins, one of Freire’s biographers, said of him,
“How is one to account for the optimism of Paulo Freire?… Freire’s life and work as an educator is optimistic in spite of poverty, imprisonment and exile…. On a planet where more than half the people go hungry every day because nations are incapable of feeding all their citizens, where we cannot agree that every being has a right to eat, Paulo Freire toils to help men and women overcome their sense of powerlessness to act on their own behalf” (Denis Collins, Paulo Freire: His Life, Works, and Thought).
Freire himself put it this way late in his life when he wrote: “Above all my difference lies in my critical, in no-way-naïve optimism and the hope that encourages me and that does not exist for the fatalistic” (Pedagogy of the Heart, p. 40). Fatalism and cynicism had no place in Freire’s life because he was too busy trying to be part of the solution to injustice rather than a cynical bystander.
Freire believed that the messenger of hope had a two fold purpose: denunciation and annunciation. The prophet denounces the systems, policies and persons that oppress and marginalize the poor and outcast, while announcing the possibility of a world where justice, freedom and opportunity are equally available to all. Like other messengers of hope such as ML King, Mahatma Gandhi and Cesar Chavez, Freire's message was a threat to the folks in power because he not only challenged their place of privilege, but also the policies and actions that gave them that privilege. You see, cynicism always serves the purposes of those in power because it discourages people from seeking meaningful change.
Time will tell if Barack Obama is simply mouthing high sounding words or is a true messenger of hope. In no way do I place him in the same company as people like Freire, King, Gandhi or Chavez. At the same time I can not side with those who would regard hope as unrealistic. Perhaps I am a dreamer, but dreamers are ones who change the world from what it is to the world as it could and should be. Hope is not the opposite of “realism,” but rather the antidote to a fatalism that saps people of their drive and capacity to work for meaningful change.
Over the last couple of years I have been studying the life and work of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator who developed a method of literacy training that enabled thousands of illiterate campesinos to read in a matter of months. His methods were so successful that the Brazilian government imprisoned him for sedition, and eventually exiled him. The ruling elite didn’t trust someone who would teach folks how to read, because then those same folks were able figure out that their so-called leaders were working in ways that limited their opportunities and caused their suffering. Freire spent his 20 year exile traveling the globe sharing his message and educational philosophy. Late in life when the Brazilian government changed hands, he was allowed back into the country where he held a government post as Education Minister until his death in 1997.
Throughout much of his life Freire sought to raise the prospects of the poorest of the world’s poor by giving them one of the most valuable tools for advancing one’s station in life: the ability to read. His work came to light in the English speaking world with the English translation of his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1970.Freire understood that what he was doing had political implications, and thus he taught his students to not only read the word, but also “read the world” and the forces that oppressed them. Through this process of consciouness raising, Freire's method empowered poor folks to challenge their oppressors and change their conditions.
Despite his personal struggles and the powerful opposition he faced, Paulo Freire was always known as a joyful man full of hope. Thus, it is fitting that one of his last writings was entitled Pedagogy of Hope, which was a retrospective on the working out of ideas expressed decades before in Pedagogy of Oppressed.
Denis Collins, one of Freire’s biographers, said of him,
“How is one to account for the optimism of Paulo Freire?… Freire’s life and work as an educator is optimistic in spite of poverty, imprisonment and exile…. On a planet where more than half the people go hungry every day because nations are incapable of feeding all their citizens, where we cannot agree that every being has a right to eat, Paulo Freire toils to help men and women overcome their sense of powerlessness to act on their own behalf” (Denis Collins, Paulo Freire: His Life, Works, and Thought).
Freire himself put it this way late in his life when he wrote: “Above all my difference lies in my critical, in no-way-naïve optimism and the hope that encourages me and that does not exist for the fatalistic” (Pedagogy of the Heart, p. 40). Fatalism and cynicism had no place in Freire’s life because he was too busy trying to be part of the solution to injustice rather than a cynical bystander.
Freire believed that the messenger of hope had a two fold purpose: denunciation and annunciation. The prophet denounces the systems, policies and persons that oppress and marginalize the poor and outcast, while announcing the possibility of a world where justice, freedom and opportunity are equally available to all. Like other messengers of hope such as ML King, Mahatma Gandhi and Cesar Chavez, Freire's message was a threat to the folks in power because he not only challenged their place of privilege, but also the policies and actions that gave them that privilege. You see, cynicism always serves the purposes of those in power because it discourages people from seeking meaningful change.
Time will tell if Barack Obama is simply mouthing high sounding words or is a true messenger of hope. In no way do I place him in the same company as people like Freire, King, Gandhi or Chavez. At the same time I can not side with those who would regard hope as unrealistic. Perhaps I am a dreamer, but dreamers are ones who change the world from what it is to the world as it could and should be. Hope is not the opposite of “realism,” but rather the antidote to a fatalism that saps people of their drive and capacity to work for meaningful change.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Obama and My Hope for True Democracy
I am voting for Barack Obama to be the Democratic presidential nominee and rooting for him to be the next president, and here is why: in my mind he brings me hope that as a nation we can experience true democracy. As much as President Bush and leaders in both major political parties talk about how they love democracy, it’s not true. What they like is game they call democracy where they get to write the rules and determine who gets to play, and what the outcome will be. True democracy places its trust in the power and wisdom of the people to decide, not leaders of the party. That is why the leaders of both parties prefer primaries to caucuses. In primaries you can limit the game to leading players, but in caucuses you get regular folks coming together to debate the issues and the pros/cons of the candidates. In caucuses regular folks actually think they know something about policy and leadership and they make up their own mind. They distrust the veteran politicians and listen to what makes sense to them, and the party leaders can’t stand it. What has happened this primary season is that somehow the political hacks let things get out of hand and they ended up with a McCain, a Huckabee and an Obama sparking people’s interest in actually speaking their minds, and the Clintons, Romneys and Fred Thompsons of the world are being left on the sidelines.
The fact is even the founding fathers didn’t believe in true democracy. That’s why when they set up the Constitution they limited voting power to white males of Anglo descent who owned land. Women, blacks, Native Americans, Germans Irish and poor folks were excluded from voting. That way they could control the game and predetermine who got what. Despite 200+ years of amendments that have allowed blacks, non-Anglos, women, and poor folks to vote, the game is still rigged. The other day on NPR I heard a report of all the “special interests,” such as lawyers, educators, unions, entertainers and corporate PACs that are pouring money into the campaigns of Clinton, Obama and McCain in hopes of “getting something in return.” Why should they have more access to power than the poor schmucks who are just trying to make a living and can’t give a contribution, or volunteer for a candidate? For all his talk about “exporting democracy,” George Bush doesn’t believe in democracy either. In the Gaza strip Hamas won free and fair elections, and immediately he discredited them and cut them off from any support. Furthermore, he can’t stand Hugo Chavez, the duly elected president of Venezuela, who happens to be socialist.
So why does Barack Obama give me hope? Obama came to politics as a community organizer. In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama describes his education into the needs of the working class, mostly African-American folks he got to know on the South Side of Chicago where he worked as a community organizer. Community organizers by training and orientation believe in grassroots politics. Their job is to help people identify the important issues facing their community, bring folks together around those issues, and devise ways to bring pressure on the power brokers to make changes. Community organizers trust that people can make wise and effective decisions when given the power and opportunity to do so. If you notice, in his speeches Obama uses the language of “we” and “us” a lot, and speaks of his campaign as a movement. That’s organizer language, and while it may be just a set of good political slogans, I’m hoping that it is more than rhetoric.
Clinton and McCain came through the ranks of the established political system. They talk about heir experience and how they will get things done on the first day in the job. It’s all about what they will do because “Hey, I’ve got the experience and I know how the system works.” That may be true, but the system is what is wrong. The system favors the few who either have survived the cutthroat political game or who have the money to influence the players. The game is that we call it “democracy” (the rule of the many) when it is in fact oligarchy (the reign of the few).
So I am putting my hopes on Obama. I may be wrong. The moneychangers and the power brokers may get to him. He may be pulling the wool over our eyes. But his words and actions, plus his past experience, make me want to believe that he actually wants grassroots democracy to flourish, even if it challenges his views, even if it is messy at times , and even if the big boys and girls get pushed a bit to the side.
The fact is even the founding fathers didn’t believe in true democracy. That’s why when they set up the Constitution they limited voting power to white males of Anglo descent who owned land. Women, blacks, Native Americans, Germans Irish and poor folks were excluded from voting. That way they could control the game and predetermine who got what. Despite 200+ years of amendments that have allowed blacks, non-Anglos, women, and poor folks to vote, the game is still rigged. The other day on NPR I heard a report of all the “special interests,” such as lawyers, educators, unions, entertainers and corporate PACs that are pouring money into the campaigns of Clinton, Obama and McCain in hopes of “getting something in return.” Why should they have more access to power than the poor schmucks who are just trying to make a living and can’t give a contribution, or volunteer for a candidate? For all his talk about “exporting democracy,” George Bush doesn’t believe in democracy either. In the Gaza strip Hamas won free and fair elections, and immediately he discredited them and cut them off from any support. Furthermore, he can’t stand Hugo Chavez, the duly elected president of Venezuela, who happens to be socialist.
So why does Barack Obama give me hope? Obama came to politics as a community organizer. In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama describes his education into the needs of the working class, mostly African-American folks he got to know on the South Side of Chicago where he worked as a community organizer. Community organizers by training and orientation believe in grassroots politics. Their job is to help people identify the important issues facing their community, bring folks together around those issues, and devise ways to bring pressure on the power brokers to make changes. Community organizers trust that people can make wise and effective decisions when given the power and opportunity to do so. If you notice, in his speeches Obama uses the language of “we” and “us” a lot, and speaks of his campaign as a movement. That’s organizer language, and while it may be just a set of good political slogans, I’m hoping that it is more than rhetoric.
Clinton and McCain came through the ranks of the established political system. They talk about heir experience and how they will get things done on the first day in the job. It’s all about what they will do because “Hey, I’ve got the experience and I know how the system works.” That may be true, but the system is what is wrong. The system favors the few who either have survived the cutthroat political game or who have the money to influence the players. The game is that we call it “democracy” (the rule of the many) when it is in fact oligarchy (the reign of the few).
So I am putting my hopes on Obama. I may be wrong. The moneychangers and the power brokers may get to him. He may be pulling the wool over our eyes. But his words and actions, plus his past experience, make me want to believe that he actually wants grassroots democracy to flourish, even if it challenges his views, even if it is messy at times , and even if the big boys and girls get pushed a bit to the side.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Race and Gender as Positive Presidential Factors
In recent weeks the Democratic primary race has danced around the issues of race and gender in the close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Nevada caucuses revealed that people of color overwhelmingly voting for Obama and that women going for Hillary. Both candidates have been hesitant to talk about the race or gender issue explicitly since Clinton’s gaffe about Martin Luther King and LBJ, but it is clear that race and gender are real, though largely unacknowledged factors in this race.
Personally, I wish Obama and Clinton would talk about more about race and gender because I think both can be a real positive factor if either is elected president. Obviously if either of them are elected, they will be a “first.” However, beyond that each of them would bring a perspective to the White House that has been sorely missing in our 200+ years of white, male (usually wealthy) presidential leadership.
As the son of a Kenyan father and a white Midwestern mother, Obama brings a perspective as one who has been excluded and oppressed because of his skin color. Moreover, his social and political views were largely shaped through his experiences as a community organizer in the poor black community of Southside Chicago. He has seen poverty and suffering firsthand, and at the same time knows the capacity of normal people to organize and advocate for their rights. Obama’s critique of Clinton’s comment regarding Martin Luther King did not focus on race but rather on the fact that she did not appear to value the power of normal people to organize and make an impact on public policy. Obama has seen that power at work, and knows it can and has made a difference. Furthermore, having spent some of his childhood in Indonesia and having reconnected with his family in Kenya, Obama has a global perspective running through his blood that no U.S. president has ever had. One can only imagine that when Obama goes to speak with leaders from Africa or the Middle East, they will see something of themselves in him that they do not see in George W. Bush or any of his predecessors. These things alone will not assure Obama more success than other presidents, but he brings a worldview as a member of an oppressed group that heightens his sensitivity and could raise his credibility with others. (For insight into Obama’s background read his first book, Dreams of My Father.)
For her part Clinton brings a perspective as a woman that likewise is sorely needed. The short-lived (Fall 2006) TV show “Commander in Chief,” starring Geena Davis as the president, highlighted the fact that women in leadership tend to be more collaborative and inclusive. Studies of women in positions of executive leadership support this view. At the time the show was running Clinton was just exploring the possibility of a presidential run but it was clear to me, as I am sure it was to others, that the show was trying to make the case that a woman could be as effective a president as a man. Clinton doesn’t have the cowboy mentality that often afflicts male presidents in a time of crisis. Bush’s now largely discredited rationale for invading Iraq is only one of many examples of that mentality. Furthermore, as a wife and a mother, Clinton has an inherent concern for the well-being of families, and children and women that men often miss. Her book, It Takes a Village, speaks to her awareness of these issues. And while she is often castigated by the Right for her pro-choice position, she has written and spoken powerfully about the need to reduce the need for abortion by reducing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies especially among teenage girls. As a woman Clinton is constitutionally more connected to victims of war, poverty, and domestic abuse than former presidents. When bills are being considered or foreign policy decisions are being made, it would be a refreshing change to have someone who thinks more of the victims than victory. I believe Clinton brings that perspective.
Now obviously, Obama’s ethnic/racial heritage and Clinton’s gender do not assure that the things I have mentioned are true, or would be operative if either of them became president; but it does increase the likelihood. We all know that in moments of stress and crisis, our true values, beliefs and attitudes tend to emerge. The presidency is a high stress job with many crises. In those times, my guess is that with either Obama or Clinton in the White House, different responses based on their different backgrounds would emerge and would take us in new and positive directions.
Before this election is over in November 2008, race and/or gender will need to be discussed. In this country, we have difficulty discussing these issues without devolving into a shouting match. My hope is that instead of reducing the discussion to the “race card” or the “gender card,” we can begin to appreciate that by virtue of their race or gender that Obama or Clinton might bring to the White House a constructive perspective that has never been there before.
Personally, I wish Obama and Clinton would talk about more about race and gender because I think both can be a real positive factor if either is elected president. Obviously if either of them are elected, they will be a “first.” However, beyond that each of them would bring a perspective to the White House that has been sorely missing in our 200+ years of white, male (usually wealthy) presidential leadership.
As the son of a Kenyan father and a white Midwestern mother, Obama brings a perspective as one who has been excluded and oppressed because of his skin color. Moreover, his social and political views were largely shaped through his experiences as a community organizer in the poor black community of Southside Chicago. He has seen poverty and suffering firsthand, and at the same time knows the capacity of normal people to organize and advocate for their rights. Obama’s critique of Clinton’s comment regarding Martin Luther King did not focus on race but rather on the fact that she did not appear to value the power of normal people to organize and make an impact on public policy. Obama has seen that power at work, and knows it can and has made a difference. Furthermore, having spent some of his childhood in Indonesia and having reconnected with his family in Kenya, Obama has a global perspective running through his blood that no U.S. president has ever had. One can only imagine that when Obama goes to speak with leaders from Africa or the Middle East, they will see something of themselves in him that they do not see in George W. Bush or any of his predecessors. These things alone will not assure Obama more success than other presidents, but he brings a worldview as a member of an oppressed group that heightens his sensitivity and could raise his credibility with others. (For insight into Obama’s background read his first book, Dreams of My Father.)
For her part Clinton brings a perspective as a woman that likewise is sorely needed. The short-lived (Fall 2006) TV show “Commander in Chief,” starring Geena Davis as the president, highlighted the fact that women in leadership tend to be more collaborative and inclusive. Studies of women in positions of executive leadership support this view. At the time the show was running Clinton was just exploring the possibility of a presidential run but it was clear to me, as I am sure it was to others, that the show was trying to make the case that a woman could be as effective a president as a man. Clinton doesn’t have the cowboy mentality that often afflicts male presidents in a time of crisis. Bush’s now largely discredited rationale for invading Iraq is only one of many examples of that mentality. Furthermore, as a wife and a mother, Clinton has an inherent concern for the well-being of families, and children and women that men often miss. Her book, It Takes a Village, speaks to her awareness of these issues. And while she is often castigated by the Right for her pro-choice position, she has written and spoken powerfully about the need to reduce the need for abortion by reducing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies especially among teenage girls. As a woman Clinton is constitutionally more connected to victims of war, poverty, and domestic abuse than former presidents. When bills are being considered or foreign policy decisions are being made, it would be a refreshing change to have someone who thinks more of the victims than victory. I believe Clinton brings that perspective.
Now obviously, Obama’s ethnic/racial heritage and Clinton’s gender do not assure that the things I have mentioned are true, or would be operative if either of them became president; but it does increase the likelihood. We all know that in moments of stress and crisis, our true values, beliefs and attitudes tend to emerge. The presidency is a high stress job with many crises. In those times, my guess is that with either Obama or Clinton in the White House, different responses based on their different backgrounds would emerge and would take us in new and positive directions.
Before this election is over in November 2008, race and/or gender will need to be discussed. In this country, we have difficulty discussing these issues without devolving into a shouting match. My hope is that instead of reducing the discussion to the “race card” or the “gender card,” we can begin to appreciate that by virtue of their race or gender that Obama or Clinton might bring to the White House a constructive perspective that has never been there before.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
When Did Amnesty Become A Dirty Word
The word "amnesty" appears to have become as bad a word in the Republican lexicon as the word "liberal." Judging from the New Hampshire debate on January 5, none of the Republicans wanted to have the word "amnesty" stuck to them. When we get to the election, you can bet whoever is the Republican candidate will try to defame the Democratic challenger by calling him/her a "liberal" who believes in "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
Republicans, particularly Mitt Romney, have made illegal immigration a primary issue in the campaign, and yet their solutions to the problem are completely out of touch with reality. I went to all the websites for the major Republican and Democratic candidates to see their proposed solutions for addressing the issue of illegal immigration. What I found was quite revealing and troubling.
The Republican candidates have generally framed the issue in terms of law and order, and anti-terrorism. For instance, Romney’s website says that "[w]e must secure the border, implement an enforceable employer verification system, punish sanctuary cities and reject amnesty if we are to restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law." [All italics are mine.] Huckabee’s statement adds, "immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue." Giuliani expresses the same sentiment when he says we need to "protect our citizens by controlling America’s borders." Fred Thompson uses much the same language. The only Republican dissenter is John McCain (I will come back to him).
By listening to the Republicans one would think that these 12 million undocumented immigrants are running roughshod over our communities, vandalizing city streets and terrorizing mothers and their children. While technically they are breaking the law, the immigrants are the ones who live in fear and are exploited because of it. The overwhelming majority are not terrorists or criminals, but humble law-abiding citizens seeking to eke out a living for themselves and their families back home. Because of their illegal status, they are easy targets for coercion and manipulation by unscrupulous employers. But the Republicans would have us believe otherwise.
The Democratic candidates frame the issue quite differently. All four of the major candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson) start by acknowledging the current immigration system is broken and dysfunctional. Second, they affirm the historic American tradition of supporting the family, and seek to preserve immigrant family integrity. Third, they talk about creating a pathway to citizenship for million illegal immigrants. Finally, they talk about working with foreign governments, particularly in Latin America, to help strengthen their economies. While they acknowledge that a dimension of the issue is border security, this is not their major focus. I think Bill Richardson sums up the Democratic position when he says:
"Building a fence will not increase security, just as attempting to deport 12 million illegal immigrants is not feasible or reasonable. I believe a realistic immigration reform plan must address the problem from all sides -- securing the border, penalizing employers for knowingly hiring illegal workers, offering a tough but reasonable path to legalization, engaging Mexico in the reform process, and improving our current immigration quota system."
On this issue John McCain is more of a Democrat than a Republican. While acknowledging the border security issue, McCain goes on to give a realistic assessment. He says we must recognize...
- the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America
- the importance of pro-growth policies
- the importance of a flexible labor market
- the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population.
Then like the Democrats he advocates a pathway to citizenship, and for that he is branded with the scarlet letter “A” for Amnesty.
The Republican (minus McCain) position on immigration reminds me of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850’s who opposed all Irish and Italian immigrants, and whose solution to the slavery issue was to ship all blacks back to Africa. Their philosophy was that the U.S. should remain an Anglo-Saxon country (while conveniently ignoring the fact that the European invaders had stolen the land from its Native American inhabitants). The Know-Nothing party was a last gasp before a dramatic change occurred in the U.S. culture, starting with the emancipation and enfranchisement of the slaves and then continuing with the mass immigration of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Today, we are on the verge of as significant a change in U.S. culture. The notion of America as the "melting pot" where all peoples leave their former culture and to take on an "American" identity is going by the board. We are now in a global society where the fastest selling cars in the U.S. are made by Toyota and where most of what we buy and use is not produced here. Our telephone and consumer service centers are located in India, and telemarketers call us from anywhere in the world. We are at a point where, as sociologist Ronald Takaki says, we must look at our society through a "different mirror," a multicultural, pluralistic mirror.
The illegal immigration issue is a sign and a symptom of the change that has taken place in our society and our world. Except for McCain, the Republicans don’t seem to have a clue that the ground is shifting under their feet. The Republican emperor has no clothes.
As I have written before, in my view the immigration issue is a direct result of the NAFTA agreements of the early 1990’s. As long as capital can flow freely across borders, it only makes sense that labor be given the same privilege. Illegal or not, the 12 million undocumented workers are part of a major shift taking place in our world and in American society. So if that means I must wear the scarlet letter “A,” that’s okay; most people already think I’m a liberal as it is.
Republicans, particularly Mitt Romney, have made illegal immigration a primary issue in the campaign, and yet their solutions to the problem are completely out of touch with reality. I went to all the websites for the major Republican and Democratic candidates to see their proposed solutions for addressing the issue of illegal immigration. What I found was quite revealing and troubling.
The Republican candidates have generally framed the issue in terms of law and order, and anti-terrorism. For instance, Romney’s website says that "[w]e must secure the border, implement an enforceable employer verification system, punish sanctuary cities and reject amnesty if we are to restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law." [All italics are mine.] Huckabee’s statement adds, "immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue." Giuliani expresses the same sentiment when he says we need to "protect our citizens by controlling America’s borders." Fred Thompson uses much the same language. The only Republican dissenter is John McCain (I will come back to him).
By listening to the Republicans one would think that these 12 million undocumented immigrants are running roughshod over our communities, vandalizing city streets and terrorizing mothers and their children. While technically they are breaking the law, the immigrants are the ones who live in fear and are exploited because of it. The overwhelming majority are not terrorists or criminals, but humble law-abiding citizens seeking to eke out a living for themselves and their families back home. Because of their illegal status, they are easy targets for coercion and manipulation by unscrupulous employers. But the Republicans would have us believe otherwise.
The Democratic candidates frame the issue quite differently. All four of the major candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson) start by acknowledging the current immigration system is broken and dysfunctional. Second, they affirm the historic American tradition of supporting the family, and seek to preserve immigrant family integrity. Third, they talk about creating a pathway to citizenship for million illegal immigrants. Finally, they talk about working with foreign governments, particularly in Latin America, to help strengthen their economies. While they acknowledge that a dimension of the issue is border security, this is not their major focus. I think Bill Richardson sums up the Democratic position when he says:
"Building a fence will not increase security, just as attempting to deport 12 million illegal immigrants is not feasible or reasonable. I believe a realistic immigration reform plan must address the problem from all sides -- securing the border, penalizing employers for knowingly hiring illegal workers, offering a tough but reasonable path to legalization, engaging Mexico in the reform process, and improving our current immigration quota system."
On this issue John McCain is more of a Democrat than a Republican. While acknowledging the border security issue, McCain goes on to give a realistic assessment. He says we must recognize...
- the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America
- the importance of pro-growth policies
- the importance of a flexible labor market
- the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population.
Then like the Democrats he advocates a pathway to citizenship, and for that he is branded with the scarlet letter “A” for Amnesty.
The Republican (minus McCain) position on immigration reminds me of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850’s who opposed all Irish and Italian immigrants, and whose solution to the slavery issue was to ship all blacks back to Africa. Their philosophy was that the U.S. should remain an Anglo-Saxon country (while conveniently ignoring the fact that the European invaders had stolen the land from its Native American inhabitants). The Know-Nothing party was a last gasp before a dramatic change occurred in the U.S. culture, starting with the emancipation and enfranchisement of the slaves and then continuing with the mass immigration of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Today, we are on the verge of as significant a change in U.S. culture. The notion of America as the "melting pot" where all peoples leave their former culture and to take on an "American" identity is going by the board. We are now in a global society where the fastest selling cars in the U.S. are made by Toyota and where most of what we buy and use is not produced here. Our telephone and consumer service centers are located in India, and telemarketers call us from anywhere in the world. We are at a point where, as sociologist Ronald Takaki says, we must look at our society through a "different mirror," a multicultural, pluralistic mirror.
The illegal immigration issue is a sign and a symptom of the change that has taken place in our society and our world. Except for McCain, the Republicans don’t seem to have a clue that the ground is shifting under their feet. The Republican emperor has no clothes.
As I have written before, in my view the immigration issue is a direct result of the NAFTA agreements of the early 1990’s. As long as capital can flow freely across borders, it only makes sense that labor be given the same privilege. Illegal or not, the 12 million undocumented workers are part of a major shift taking place in our world and in American society. So if that means I must wear the scarlet letter “A,” that’s okay; most people already think I’m a liberal as it is.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
As we approach Veterans Day (Nov. 11), I am moved to reflect on another year in which our nation has been involved in the Iraq war with no resolution in sight, and now is threatening to attack Iran to involve us into yet another conflict. Meanwhile wars of various intensities go on between forces in Sudan, Palestine/Israel, Turkey/Kurdistan, Pakistan, and many other places. Theologian and political scientist Reinhold Niebuhr (Children of Light, Children of Darkness; Moral Man and Immoral Society;, The Nature and Destiny of Man) said that such conflicts are inevitable and necessary because nations, like individuals, are inherently self-centered, and therefore can only be restrained from forcing the will and way on other nations by the threat and use of violence. Niebuhr, who was a pacifist early in his career as a pastor and activist with autoworkers in Detroit, rejected pacifism as impractical and unrealistic in a spiritually fallen world. However, the pacifism of Niebuhr’s day had not been informed by Gandhi’s concept of satygraha (truth-force), nor had it seen the incredible power of nonviolence used in the U.S. Civil Rights movement or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. The pacifism of Niebuhr’s day was passive, calling for nonresistance and nonintervention in issues of social injustice. It did not engage injustice or violence; it simply avoided it.
In contrast theologian Walter Wink has called this perspective on the inevitability of violence, the “myth of redemptive violence.” In short the myth of redemptive violence states “that violence saves, that war brings peace, that might makes right. It is one of the oldest continuously repeated stories in the world” (The Powers That Be, p. 42). Wink goes on to point out that this myth is repeated and reinforced in Greek myth, in Saturday morning cartoon shows, in shows like “24” and movies like “Diehard” and in any number of religious texts including the Bible. It is also the ideology of most governments, including our own. Wink concludes: “In short the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the story of the victory of order over chaos by means of violence. It is the ideology of conquest, the original religion of the status quo. The gods favor those who conquer. Conversely, whoever conquers must have the favor of the gods” (p. 48).
The problem is that violence and war give birth to resentment, oppression and eventually more violence and war. The wars mentioned above all were birthed out of previous wars. World War I planted the seeds of World War II, which gave birth to the Cold War, which birthed numerous small “hot wars,” including Korea and Vietnam, which led to our involvement in suppressing countries in the Middle East, which led to 9/11, which led to Iraq and potentially Iran. Now while this analysis is admittedly simplistic, it does illustrate my point: war does not and has not brought peace or order, but rather quite the opposite. Despite the overarching acceptance of the myth of redemptive violence, there have been a few exceptions to this pattern, such as Gandhi’s movement to throw off British rule in the 1940’s, the U.S. Civil Rights movement, and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, all of which used assertive non-violence to fight oppression and injustice rather than war. South Africa took the process to the logical, but rarely tried, next step with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which whites, Boers, and Africans, oppressors and oppressed, went before the nation to tell their stories, confess their crimes and seek national reconciliation. Instead of hiding one’s crimes and injustice behind a patriotic violence as a “just cause,” the South Africans confessed their crimes and have achieved national reconciliation and healing to an unprecedented degree.
No doubt as we approach Veterans Day we will hear a great deal about how soldiers past and present have “fought for our freedom” as Americans. I would only ask how much freer we feel for having engaged in all our many wars. The notion that fighting a war in Iraq somehow preserves my freedom as an American shows the utter absurdity of the myth of redemptive violence. In this time when war is enshrined, I hope that in our more sober moments we see the myth of redemptive violence for what it is, and seek a better way.
In contrast theologian Walter Wink has called this perspective on the inevitability of violence, the “myth of redemptive violence.” In short the myth of redemptive violence states “that violence saves, that war brings peace, that might makes right. It is one of the oldest continuously repeated stories in the world” (The Powers That Be, p. 42). Wink goes on to point out that this myth is repeated and reinforced in Greek myth, in Saturday morning cartoon shows, in shows like “24” and movies like “Diehard” and in any number of religious texts including the Bible. It is also the ideology of most governments, including our own. Wink concludes: “In short the Myth of Redemptive Violence is the story of the victory of order over chaos by means of violence. It is the ideology of conquest, the original religion of the status quo. The gods favor those who conquer. Conversely, whoever conquers must have the favor of the gods” (p. 48).
The problem is that violence and war give birth to resentment, oppression and eventually more violence and war. The wars mentioned above all were birthed out of previous wars. World War I planted the seeds of World War II, which gave birth to the Cold War, which birthed numerous small “hot wars,” including Korea and Vietnam, which led to our involvement in suppressing countries in the Middle East, which led to 9/11, which led to Iraq and potentially Iran. Now while this analysis is admittedly simplistic, it does illustrate my point: war does not and has not brought peace or order, but rather quite the opposite. Despite the overarching acceptance of the myth of redemptive violence, there have been a few exceptions to this pattern, such as Gandhi’s movement to throw off British rule in the 1940’s, the U.S. Civil Rights movement, and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, all of which used assertive non-violence to fight oppression and injustice rather than war. South Africa took the process to the logical, but rarely tried, next step with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which whites, Boers, and Africans, oppressors and oppressed, went before the nation to tell their stories, confess their crimes and seek national reconciliation. Instead of hiding one’s crimes and injustice behind a patriotic violence as a “just cause,” the South Africans confessed their crimes and have achieved national reconciliation and healing to an unprecedented degree.
No doubt as we approach Veterans Day we will hear a great deal about how soldiers past and present have “fought for our freedom” as Americans. I would only ask how much freer we feel for having engaged in all our many wars. The notion that fighting a war in Iraq somehow preserves my freedom as an American shows the utter absurdity of the myth of redemptive violence. In this time when war is enshrined, I hope that in our more sober moments we see the myth of redemptive violence for what it is, and seek a better way.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Gun Violence Prevention
This past week the news has been filled with the shootings at SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, Ohio. Asa Coon, a 14 year old student entered the school with two revolvers and shot two students and two teachers before shooting himself. Closer to home in Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania, Dillon Casey, another 14 year old boy was intercepted with an entire arsenal of guns before he entered his high school to pull off a similar kind of shooting. On Friday (10/12) in Royersford, Pennsylvania the high school football game was cancelled after a teenager pulled a gun on another boy over a girlfriend. This week these incidents covered the front pages the Philadelphia area newspapers but on the back pages we continue to read of youth violence in the city continuing at a record pace.
Understandably, a great deal of talk has been generated about school security, the impact of bullying on the perpetrators, and the "warning signs” to look for in kids like these. However, no one seems to be asking a more basic question: where the hell did these kids get the guns? Conflicts between boys at school, bullies, and troubled teens are not new phenomena. Those issues were around when I was in high school and when my dad was in high school. This is not to say the behavior and emotional turmoil of such kids are not of concern, but we used to deal with these issues with words and fists. Rarely, did people end up getting killed, because no one had such easy access to guns.
On October 6, I attended a conference sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) on gun violence prevention. At that event I heard a speaker named Bryan Miller, who is the Executive Director of Cease Fire New Jersey (CFNJ). Several years ago Bryan left a job in international business to found CFNJ after his brother was gunned down by a teenager using an illegal handgun. His mission is simple: get illegal handguns off the street. His approach has been successful in New Jersey and now he has turned his sights on Pennsylvania, because the lax handgun laws in PA are fueling the trafficking of handguns up and down the Northeast.
Almost all youth violence occurs with the use of illegally purchased handguns. According the government statistics cited by Miller, only 25% of the criminal gun use in New Jersey is committed with guns bought in New Jersey. The rest of the guns come from Pennsylvania. The same is true for New York and Maryland. By contrast 80% of the criminal gun use in Pennsylvania comes from guns bought in Pennsylvania. Why is this? Because anyone over the age of 18, without a criminal record or a record of mental illness can buy as many handguns as they want with no waiting period. This lax policy fuels an illegal market for handguns.
According to Bryan Miller, here is how it works. Illegal gun marketers, who usually have criminal records, hire “straw buyers” to purchase guns on their behalf. A minimal background check is done with state and national databases for any record of criminal activity, and the buyer can walk out with the guns. Then, the straw buyer hands the guns to the illegal gun marketer for a small commission. The guns are then sold illegally in the underground market and there is no documentation of the real owner of the gun. When a crime is committed and the gun is traced back to straw buyers, they say the gun was lost or stolen, and nothing can be done. Those guns are out on the illegal market free and clear.
For years the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have tried to change the state laws on gun sales to no avail. They have even tried to pass laws simply within their own jurisdictions, and have been blocked by the state legislature. The National Rifle Association (NRA) which lavishly funds the campaign chests of most state and federal legislators (regardless of political party) opposes any restrictions of gun sales, and has blocked these efforts at every turn. While stating that they are representing the legal gun owners, the NRA is really serving its larger client, the gun industry. According to Bryan Miller, the gun industry is a mature industry, meaning they have sold as many legal guns as they are going to sell. So to expand their business they need the illegal market. As long as politicians feel beholden to the NRA and its wealthy coffers, laws designed to restrict the sale of handguns (as opposed to hunting rifles or sport guns) will not be changed. Bryan Miller’s strategy is to put pressure on the politicians to listen to the people instead of the NRA.
Miller has proposed two simple bills in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. HR 29 would require buyers to report to the police when their guns are lost or stolen. Failure to report would carry a fine and there would be a greater penalty if the gun was used in a crime. The goal of this bill is to discourage the practice of straw buying. The second Bill HB22 would limit buyers to purchase only one handgun a month. The purpose of this bill would be to make the task of purchasing illegal handguns much more difficult for buyers and marketers.
CFNJ was able to push through similar bills in New Jersey with dramatic results. Two Philadelphia Inquirer reporters wrote a story comparing handgun sales in PA and NJ. Each went into to buy a gun. In PA the reporter walked in and asked to buy a handgun and 45 minutes later he walked out of the store, gun in hand. In NJ the reporter needed to wait a month just to get permission to purchase the gun.
Bryan Miller helped start Cease Fire PA (CFPA). I would urge folks to check out their information and if you are in Pennsylvania write your representatives about these two bills. Miller believes from research he has done that there is overwhelming support for these bills once people understand (1) the true purpose of the bill is to restrict the sale of illegal handguns and (2) they don’t restrict the legal uses of guns for hunting, sport shooting, and collecting. If you don’t live in Pennsylvania, check out the laws in your own state. Chances are there is work to be done there as well.
Obviously, the job will not be complete until the gun companies are held accountable for their complicity in the illegal gun sales. Right now several cities (including Philadelphia and New York) have sought to sue the gun companies over their role in the illegal gun market, but thanks to the NRA-sponsored George W. Bush administration, most of those suits have been blocked by the Justice Department. However, just like the tobacco companies were finally brought to justice over their complicity in hiding the cancerous effects of smoking, so too the clock is ticking for the gun companies. They know it, and they will put up a smokescreen and a fight. So those who believe in peace must push back.
Understandably, a great deal of talk has been generated about school security, the impact of bullying on the perpetrators, and the "warning signs” to look for in kids like these. However, no one seems to be asking a more basic question: where the hell did these kids get the guns? Conflicts between boys at school, bullies, and troubled teens are not new phenomena. Those issues were around when I was in high school and when my dad was in high school. This is not to say the behavior and emotional turmoil of such kids are not of concern, but we used to deal with these issues with words and fists. Rarely, did people end up getting killed, because no one had such easy access to guns.
On October 6, I attended a conference sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) on gun violence prevention. At that event I heard a speaker named Bryan Miller, who is the Executive Director of Cease Fire New Jersey (CFNJ). Several years ago Bryan left a job in international business to found CFNJ after his brother was gunned down by a teenager using an illegal handgun. His mission is simple: get illegal handguns off the street. His approach has been successful in New Jersey and now he has turned his sights on Pennsylvania, because the lax handgun laws in PA are fueling the trafficking of handguns up and down the Northeast.
Almost all youth violence occurs with the use of illegally purchased handguns. According the government statistics cited by Miller, only 25% of the criminal gun use in New Jersey is committed with guns bought in New Jersey. The rest of the guns come from Pennsylvania. The same is true for New York and Maryland. By contrast 80% of the criminal gun use in Pennsylvania comes from guns bought in Pennsylvania. Why is this? Because anyone over the age of 18, without a criminal record or a record of mental illness can buy as many handguns as they want with no waiting period. This lax policy fuels an illegal market for handguns.
According to Bryan Miller, here is how it works. Illegal gun marketers, who usually have criminal records, hire “straw buyers” to purchase guns on their behalf. A minimal background check is done with state and national databases for any record of criminal activity, and the buyer can walk out with the guns. Then, the straw buyer hands the guns to the illegal gun marketer for a small commission. The guns are then sold illegally in the underground market and there is no documentation of the real owner of the gun. When a crime is committed and the gun is traced back to straw buyers, they say the gun was lost or stolen, and nothing can be done. Those guns are out on the illegal market free and clear.
For years the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have tried to change the state laws on gun sales to no avail. They have even tried to pass laws simply within their own jurisdictions, and have been blocked by the state legislature. The National Rifle Association (NRA) which lavishly funds the campaign chests of most state and federal legislators (regardless of political party) opposes any restrictions of gun sales, and has blocked these efforts at every turn. While stating that they are representing the legal gun owners, the NRA is really serving its larger client, the gun industry. According to Bryan Miller, the gun industry is a mature industry, meaning they have sold as many legal guns as they are going to sell. So to expand their business they need the illegal market. As long as politicians feel beholden to the NRA and its wealthy coffers, laws designed to restrict the sale of handguns (as opposed to hunting rifles or sport guns) will not be changed. Bryan Miller’s strategy is to put pressure on the politicians to listen to the people instead of the NRA.
Miller has proposed two simple bills in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. HR 29 would require buyers to report to the police when their guns are lost or stolen. Failure to report would carry a fine and there would be a greater penalty if the gun was used in a crime. The goal of this bill is to discourage the practice of straw buying. The second Bill HB22 would limit buyers to purchase only one handgun a month. The purpose of this bill would be to make the task of purchasing illegal handguns much more difficult for buyers and marketers.
CFNJ was able to push through similar bills in New Jersey with dramatic results. Two Philadelphia Inquirer reporters wrote a story comparing handgun sales in PA and NJ. Each went into to buy a gun. In PA the reporter walked in and asked to buy a handgun and 45 minutes later he walked out of the store, gun in hand. In NJ the reporter needed to wait a month just to get permission to purchase the gun.
Bryan Miller helped start Cease Fire PA (CFPA). I would urge folks to check out their information and if you are in Pennsylvania write your representatives about these two bills. Miller believes from research he has done that there is overwhelming support for these bills once people understand (1) the true purpose of the bill is to restrict the sale of illegal handguns and (2) they don’t restrict the legal uses of guns for hunting, sport shooting, and collecting. If you don’t live in Pennsylvania, check out the laws in your own state. Chances are there is work to be done there as well.
Obviously, the job will not be complete until the gun companies are held accountable for their complicity in the illegal gun sales. Right now several cities (including Philadelphia and New York) have sought to sue the gun companies over their role in the illegal gun market, but thanks to the NRA-sponsored George W. Bush administration, most of those suits have been blocked by the Justice Department. However, just like the tobacco companies were finally brought to justice over their complicity in hiding the cancerous effects of smoking, so too the clock is ticking for the gun companies. They know it, and they will put up a smokescreen and a fight. So those who believe in peace must push back.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
A Faith Like Mother Theresa
In late August the Vatican released copies of letters that revealed that Mother Theresa, the diminutive nun who founded the Sisters of Charity, had spent much of her adult life feeling distant and alienated from God. These letters, written by Mother Theresa to priests and friends who served as her confidants and confessors, were never intended to be made public. However, as part of the Roman Catholic canonization process these documents are being reviewed and for unspecified reasons have now been made public. When the news outlets first announced the story, they presented it with a mixture of surprise and sadness. How could this woman who had served the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, had inspired thousands to pursue a life of service, and had challenged millions with her example and her message,… how could SHE feel distant from God? As David Van Biema stated in a Time magazine (9/3/07) article on the announcement, her “remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God,” yet she confessed at many times “the silence and emptiness is so great.” Mother Theresa, whom many had put on a spiritual pedestal, turned out to be a struggling and spiritual barren human being who for nearly 50 years went through life feeling the absence and distance of God, rather than God’s intimacy. How could such a person be considered for sainthood?
I must admit that even though I too was surprised, I found great comfort when I heard the reports. Like many evangelical Protestant Christians, I was taught to believe that God “had a wonderful plan for my life” and that I could have “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” I believed that if I read my Bible regularly, prayed daily, worshipped faithfully, and sought to live out the principles of my faith, I would have a clear sense of God’s presence in my life. As a Baptist pastor I regularly repeated such sentiments in my preaching and teaching. Certainly there might be some periods of spiritual dryness, but over time I would grow in my sense of intimacy with God. That was how Christian faith was supposed to work, or so I thought.
However, when I left the pastorate, stepped back and looked at my spiritual life, I began to question the veracity and validity of that perspective. I began to wonder if I had simply participated in a sophisticated self-delusion, and if in fact I could even call myself a Christian. I never lost my fascination and deep respect for Jesus of Nazareth, but I felt increasingly alienated from the tradition that sprang from him. Like Mother Theresa, when I meditated and prayed, the only thing I heard was my own hollow inner voice.
That emptiness has continued for 10 years with two exceptions. First, when I attend worship at the West Philadelphia Mennonite Fellowship where I am a member, I regularly come away thinking that maybe this God and Jesus stuff could be true. This reminder is not prompted by anything in the worship per se (i.e. the music, the sermon, the prayers, communion, etc), but rather simply in the gathering of like-minded people on a similar hungry quest. At WPMF we talk openly about our questions and doubts while recommitting ourselves to continue to live according the dictates of our faith. Somehow being surrounded by folks on a similar journey keeps me from feeling so spiritually alienated.
The second place where the sense of isolation lifts is when I find myself in service with and to other people. In a way I can’t fully comprehend, I often sense something of Jesus in other people. As a college professor, I am fortunate to have regular opportunities to interact with adults and young people who are seeking to expand their minds and deepen their understanding of life. My work regularly brings me in contact with folks old and young, educated and functionally illiterate, who are seeking to serve others in the midst of their own struggle and brokenness. I also volunteer as a tutor helping a young woman learn how to read, and am in awe of her desire to master the written word. In these folks I see the life and truth and Jesus.
I believe it was Mother Theresa who said that we see meet Jesus in the lives of the poor. While she may not have heard the voice or sensed the presence of God in her inner life, by her own testimony she met Jesus daily in her service to the broken beggars of Calcutta. I have come to accept that I will never have a deep sense of inner intimacy with God in my life. Yet, Mother Theresa’s example encourages me to believe that as I seek to become more of a servant to others, I have the hope of touching the Transcendent through the lives of people I meet.
Atheists like Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice) will venture that this faith business is all a dangerous and socially destructive self-delusion. He draws this conclusion based on the the wealth of examples of religion gone bad from Pat Robertson to Jim Jones to Osama Bin Laden. However, for me faith is validated in the quiet lives of faithfulness of people who despite their faults live according to their deeply held values. No doubt we Christians get it wrong much, if not most, of the time. However we get it right when our actions demonstrate our faith, even when our faith, like Mother Theresa’s, limps along with doubts and questions. As we serve, Jesus can and does surprise us in the lives of the people we encounter.
I must admit that even though I too was surprised, I found great comfort when I heard the reports. Like many evangelical Protestant Christians, I was taught to believe that God “had a wonderful plan for my life” and that I could have “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” I believed that if I read my Bible regularly, prayed daily, worshipped faithfully, and sought to live out the principles of my faith, I would have a clear sense of God’s presence in my life. As a Baptist pastor I regularly repeated such sentiments in my preaching and teaching. Certainly there might be some periods of spiritual dryness, but over time I would grow in my sense of intimacy with God. That was how Christian faith was supposed to work, or so I thought.
However, when I left the pastorate, stepped back and looked at my spiritual life, I began to question the veracity and validity of that perspective. I began to wonder if I had simply participated in a sophisticated self-delusion, and if in fact I could even call myself a Christian. I never lost my fascination and deep respect for Jesus of Nazareth, but I felt increasingly alienated from the tradition that sprang from him. Like Mother Theresa, when I meditated and prayed, the only thing I heard was my own hollow inner voice.
That emptiness has continued for 10 years with two exceptions. First, when I attend worship at the West Philadelphia Mennonite Fellowship where I am a member, I regularly come away thinking that maybe this God and Jesus stuff could be true. This reminder is not prompted by anything in the worship per se (i.e. the music, the sermon, the prayers, communion, etc), but rather simply in the gathering of like-minded people on a similar hungry quest. At WPMF we talk openly about our questions and doubts while recommitting ourselves to continue to live according the dictates of our faith. Somehow being surrounded by folks on a similar journey keeps me from feeling so spiritually alienated.
The second place where the sense of isolation lifts is when I find myself in service with and to other people. In a way I can’t fully comprehend, I often sense something of Jesus in other people. As a college professor, I am fortunate to have regular opportunities to interact with adults and young people who are seeking to expand their minds and deepen their understanding of life. My work regularly brings me in contact with folks old and young, educated and functionally illiterate, who are seeking to serve others in the midst of their own struggle and brokenness. I also volunteer as a tutor helping a young woman learn how to read, and am in awe of her desire to master the written word. In these folks I see the life and truth and Jesus.
I believe it was Mother Theresa who said that we see meet Jesus in the lives of the poor. While she may not have heard the voice or sensed the presence of God in her inner life, by her own testimony she met Jesus daily in her service to the broken beggars of Calcutta. I have come to accept that I will never have a deep sense of inner intimacy with God in my life. Yet, Mother Theresa’s example encourages me to believe that as I seek to become more of a servant to others, I have the hope of touching the Transcendent through the lives of people I meet.
Atheists like Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice) will venture that this faith business is all a dangerous and socially destructive self-delusion. He draws this conclusion based on the the wealth of examples of religion gone bad from Pat Robertson to Jim Jones to Osama Bin Laden. However, for me faith is validated in the quiet lives of faithfulness of people who despite their faults live according to their deeply held values. No doubt we Christians get it wrong much, if not most, of the time. However we get it right when our actions demonstrate our faith, even when our faith, like Mother Theresa’s, limps along with doubts and questions. As we serve, Jesus can and does surprise us in the lives of the people we encounter.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Generational Musings
The most recent issue of Utne Reader (Sept/Oct 2007) featured a series of three articles discussing the role Baby Boomers can and should play in shaping and changing the world of the 21st century. Boomers are that generation of Americans born between 1946 and 1964 who currently makeup 20% of the population. Essentially, the articles centered on the question: Do Boomers have something to offer the younger generation in terms of wisdom and experience, or are they simply a generation of self-absorbed, would be do-gooders, who don’t want to grow up and will be a tremendous financial and social burden on the younger generations behind them? As a Boomer college professor and father of three young adults, and as one who spends a great deal of time around twenty-and-thirty-somethings, I had more than a passing interest in the discussion.
In the opening article, “The New Elders” Eric Utne and Richard Leider propose that because Boomers are working and living longer, they ought to focus on passing along the wisdom of their experiences, both positive and negative. They also propose that Boomers need to listen to Millenials and Baby Busters because they have mastered the world of information. The mixture of wisdom with knowledge could be a powerful combination. Of course, in order to mentor someone, you have to be asked.
That is the issue K.C. Compton takes up in the second article, “You Say You Want a Revolution.” Compton, a woman in her 50’s, recounts all the cultural and societal changes that came about because of the activism of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. She admits that Boomers can be “narcissistic and self-righteous,” but claims that her generation didn’t fail, they just got overwhelmed with all that needed to be changed. Compton goes too easy on Boomers. I remember thinking even in college in the early 70’s that most folks in my generation were shifting from a superficial commitment to change to an all-out embrace of materialism. We didn’t get overwhelmed; we switched sides.
The final article, “Tangled Up in Me” is written by Joseph Hart, a non-Boomer who basically thinks Boomers overestimate their worth and value. He writes, “the generation that exhorted us to never trust anyone older than 30 – then grew up and proved the point by ushering in the long nightmare of social conservatism and permanent war that is our current reality.” Hart’s critique is a bit harsh, as the Reagan era while supported by Boomers, was largely an attempt by the WWII generation to bring us back to an idyllic “morning in America” that never actually existed. Even so, he is correct in that the Clinton and Bush eras have been characterized by war, greed and corruption. Hart’s final word is “a higher road and more challenging practice [for Boomers] would be for them to shut up and listen for a change.” Ouch!
Recently at a conference on social change, I made a presentation on the spirituality of hope for political activists based on some of the writings of Paulo Freire. One participant asked me what gave me hope. Without so much as a thought, I said: “My children and my students.” While I read about how undisciplined and unfocused young adults are, I continually SEE and MEET young adults who are passionate, intelligent, and concerned for peace and justice. I see people who are writing, acting, starting businesses, working overseas, teaching, and raising families in alternative ways. These young adults give me great hope for the future. My own children are exploring careers and life directions pointed at relieving suffering and challenging injustice. As a result, I increasingly find myself sitting back and listening because I think they have great insights that still can make a positive difference in the world.
While it is a time when young adults are stepping up, it’s not a time for Boomers to sit down. I would hope we can learn and grow together and continue to address some of the major challenges that still face us: old, young and in-between.
In the opening article, “The New Elders” Eric Utne and Richard Leider propose that because Boomers are working and living longer, they ought to focus on passing along the wisdom of their experiences, both positive and negative. They also propose that Boomers need to listen to Millenials and Baby Busters because they have mastered the world of information. The mixture of wisdom with knowledge could be a powerful combination. Of course, in order to mentor someone, you have to be asked.
That is the issue K.C. Compton takes up in the second article, “You Say You Want a Revolution.” Compton, a woman in her 50’s, recounts all the cultural and societal changes that came about because of the activism of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. She admits that Boomers can be “narcissistic and self-righteous,” but claims that her generation didn’t fail, they just got overwhelmed with all that needed to be changed. Compton goes too easy on Boomers. I remember thinking even in college in the early 70’s that most folks in my generation were shifting from a superficial commitment to change to an all-out embrace of materialism. We didn’t get overwhelmed; we switched sides.
The final article, “Tangled Up in Me” is written by Joseph Hart, a non-Boomer who basically thinks Boomers overestimate their worth and value. He writes, “the generation that exhorted us to never trust anyone older than 30 – then grew up and proved the point by ushering in the long nightmare of social conservatism and permanent war that is our current reality.” Hart’s critique is a bit harsh, as the Reagan era while supported by Boomers, was largely an attempt by the WWII generation to bring us back to an idyllic “morning in America” that never actually existed. Even so, he is correct in that the Clinton and Bush eras have been characterized by war, greed and corruption. Hart’s final word is “a higher road and more challenging practice [for Boomers] would be for them to shut up and listen for a change.” Ouch!
Recently at a conference on social change, I made a presentation on the spirituality of hope for political activists based on some of the writings of Paulo Freire. One participant asked me what gave me hope. Without so much as a thought, I said: “My children and my students.” While I read about how undisciplined and unfocused young adults are, I continually SEE and MEET young adults who are passionate, intelligent, and concerned for peace and justice. I see people who are writing, acting, starting businesses, working overseas, teaching, and raising families in alternative ways. These young adults give me great hope for the future. My own children are exploring careers and life directions pointed at relieving suffering and challenging injustice. As a result, I increasingly find myself sitting back and listening because I think they have great insights that still can make a positive difference in the world.
While it is a time when young adults are stepping up, it’s not a time for Boomers to sit down. I would hope we can learn and grow together and continue to address some of the major challenges that still face us: old, young and in-between.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Irish Reflections
Recently, I spent 12 days in Ireland with my wife and twenty year old daughter. I had never been to the “green isle” before, so this was new adventure. As I understand it, Ireland has experienced an economic resurgence over the past decade, and as a result has emerged as the European vacation of choice for many Americans (according to at least one tour guide I spoke with). For nearly two weeks I was immersed in Irish life and culture, which I found interesting and refreshing. I would like to share four concrete insights that struck me on my trip. Even though they are obviously through the lens of a tourist (for Ireland’s tourist industry is definitely a well-oiled machine), I think there may be some deeper realities to consider.
One thing that strikes any American visitor to Ireland is the cleanliness of the place. Not only are the streets clean and trash picked up, but the air is clear and free of smog, even in Dublin which is a bustling city of over a million people. The parks are beautifully maintained, as if they are golf courses. More importantly, throughout the country there are signs reminding people to recycle and to think in terms of renewable energy. Because the roads are narrow and the gas prices high, people drive small, energy efficient cars. We saw several brands of cars (such as a Nissan Micra) that aren’t even sold in the United States, and we didn’t see one gas-guzzling SUV. During the entire tip I only saw one public restroom that had paper towels to dry your hands; everywhere else there were blowers to dry one’s hands. Instead of environmental responsibility being an individual choice, as it is in the U.S., in Ireland environmental concern is a cultural mandate. I could not help but recognize how arrogant and wasteful the U.S. attitude toward ecological concerns are compared to the Irish.
Closely aligned to their environmental concerns is the sense of connection to the rest of the world. Ireland is a member in the European Union and so our money was in the form of Euros. On the news reports there was this clear awareness that Ireland was part of a larger global community, not only with Europe, but throughout the world. In the city of Dublin banners adorn the light poles that announce that Dublin is a “fair trade city,” thus linking Dublin’s economy to the farmers and producers in developing countries. Almost all the coffee shops we entered sold fair trade coffee and many of the markets had fair trade fruits and vegetables. In this country we often talk about being part of a global community, but we do so only on our terms. If we don’t agree with what the rest of the world desires, be it in military matters, foreign policy, or business, we think we are big enough to simply go it alone. As we are finding out in Iraq, that is a dangerously flawed policy. The Irish, by contrast, have what appears to be a healthy sense of interdependence.
During our time there, the country was involved in the all-Ireland finals for Gaelic Football and for Hurling. For those who haven’t been introduced to these two sports, they are fast moving, high scoring, and exciting to watch, and Irish people get as excited about their sports, as Americans do theirs. I would love to see Hurling (which is sort of combination lacrosse, soccer, and football) come to the United States. One night I sat in a pub talking to older Irish men, and was surprised to learn that virtually all sports in Ireland are amateur. So when 50,000+ folks packed into Dublin’s Croke stadium to see the Hurling Semifinals, they were watching guys who had to go back to work on Monday just like them. I found it refreshing to realize that the Irish players and spectators participate for the love of sport, and the business of sport is a minor concern. While I am sure there is manipulation and corruption at some level, they have not so distorted sport that a few big, fast, brawny guys get rewarded with salaries and accolades that are way out of line with their overall social value, while spectators are endlessly gouged.
Finally, I was struck by the sense of history among the Irish. We visited ruins that went back as far as 7000 B.C., toured castles of the 12 century and saw prisons that held the revolutionaries from the rebellions of the early 1900’s. Now in part this was due to the fact that these sites are featured in the tourism guides, and I was told by some Irish folks that like elsewhere visitors are often more aware of their history than the Irish are. I know that is true for Philadelphia; many local residents have never visited the historic district. Even so, because so many ancient buildings still stand and are still in use, history is just embedded into the way people live. The Irish language is now being taught in school, after almost being eradicated by the English in the 18th and 19th century. Like other countries going through an economic boon, Ireland has experienced an influx of immigrants, particularly from Poland, Russia and Asia, yet even with that there is a sense of rootedness that was interesting. Not only did I get the sense that the Irish are connected to the rest of the world, but they are connected to their ancestors and their past. They have a greater sense of where they have come from.
My buddies at the pub assured me that Ireland has its share of problems. Apparently, the prime minister is involved is in some sort of scandal, and there was evidence of debates over land use and the huge subsidies that are paid to Irish farmers. So by no means do I mean to paint Ireland as a utopia. However, whenever one goes to another country or culture, he/she has the opportunity to see their own culture in a fresh light. That is what happened to me. There is so much more I could say, and you are welcome to look at some pictures we took. But I was struck by what we as American could learn from the Irish; I came away very much touched by their refreshing approach to life in the world today.
One thing that strikes any American visitor to Ireland is the cleanliness of the place. Not only are the streets clean and trash picked up, but the air is clear and free of smog, even in Dublin which is a bustling city of over a million people. The parks are beautifully maintained, as if they are golf courses. More importantly, throughout the country there are signs reminding people to recycle and to think in terms of renewable energy. Because the roads are narrow and the gas prices high, people drive small, energy efficient cars. We saw several brands of cars (such as a Nissan Micra) that aren’t even sold in the United States, and we didn’t see one gas-guzzling SUV. During the entire tip I only saw one public restroom that had paper towels to dry your hands; everywhere else there were blowers to dry one’s hands. Instead of environmental responsibility being an individual choice, as it is in the U.S., in Ireland environmental concern is a cultural mandate. I could not help but recognize how arrogant and wasteful the U.S. attitude toward ecological concerns are compared to the Irish.
Closely aligned to their environmental concerns is the sense of connection to the rest of the world. Ireland is a member in the European Union and so our money was in the form of Euros. On the news reports there was this clear awareness that Ireland was part of a larger global community, not only with Europe, but throughout the world. In the city of Dublin banners adorn the light poles that announce that Dublin is a “fair trade city,” thus linking Dublin’s economy to the farmers and producers in developing countries. Almost all the coffee shops we entered sold fair trade coffee and many of the markets had fair trade fruits and vegetables. In this country we often talk about being part of a global community, but we do so only on our terms. If we don’t agree with what the rest of the world desires, be it in military matters, foreign policy, or business, we think we are big enough to simply go it alone. As we are finding out in Iraq, that is a dangerously flawed policy. The Irish, by contrast, have what appears to be a healthy sense of interdependence.
During our time there, the country was involved in the all-Ireland finals for Gaelic Football and for Hurling. For those who haven’t been introduced to these two sports, they are fast moving, high scoring, and exciting to watch, and Irish people get as excited about their sports, as Americans do theirs. I would love to see Hurling (which is sort of combination lacrosse, soccer, and football) come to the United States. One night I sat in a pub talking to older Irish men, and was surprised to learn that virtually all sports in Ireland are amateur. So when 50,000+ folks packed into Dublin’s Croke stadium to see the Hurling Semifinals, they were watching guys who had to go back to work on Monday just like them. I found it refreshing to realize that the Irish players and spectators participate for the love of sport, and the business of sport is a minor concern. While I am sure there is manipulation and corruption at some level, they have not so distorted sport that a few big, fast, brawny guys get rewarded with salaries and accolades that are way out of line with their overall social value, while spectators are endlessly gouged.
Finally, I was struck by the sense of history among the Irish. We visited ruins that went back as far as 7000 B.C., toured castles of the 12 century and saw prisons that held the revolutionaries from the rebellions of the early 1900’s. Now in part this was due to the fact that these sites are featured in the tourism guides, and I was told by some Irish folks that like elsewhere visitors are often more aware of their history than the Irish are. I know that is true for Philadelphia; many local residents have never visited the historic district. Even so, because so many ancient buildings still stand and are still in use, history is just embedded into the way people live. The Irish language is now being taught in school, after almost being eradicated by the English in the 18th and 19th century. Like other countries going through an economic boon, Ireland has experienced an influx of immigrants, particularly from Poland, Russia and Asia, yet even with that there is a sense of rootedness that was interesting. Not only did I get the sense that the Irish are connected to the rest of the world, but they are connected to their ancestors and their past. They have a greater sense of where they have come from.
My buddies at the pub assured me that Ireland has its share of problems. Apparently, the prime minister is involved is in some sort of scandal, and there was evidence of debates over land use and the huge subsidies that are paid to Irish farmers. So by no means do I mean to paint Ireland as a utopia. However, whenever one goes to another country or culture, he/she has the opportunity to see their own culture in a fresh light. That is what happened to me. There is so much more I could say, and you are welcome to look at some pictures we took. But I was struck by what we as American could learn from the Irish; I came away very much touched by their refreshing approach to life in the world today.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Not So Simple Way
NOTE: While this blog refers to the Simple Way Community, I shold note that they are still recovering from the terrible fire that destroyed the space where their ministry has occurred. They have organized their neighborhood to have the building that burned into a park for children. For more see www.thesimpleway.org.
Recently, I read Shane Claiborne's book, The Irresistible Revolution, as well as Schools of Conversion, which has been put together by some of the folks involved in the new monasticism movement. As I read these books, I found myself resonating with their call to a simple lifestyle, centered on the way of Jesus in community with the poor and oppressed. At the same time I found myself looking around at my way of life and all of my stuff, and wondering "How did I stray so far from the path laid out by The Simple Way and groups like them?"
When I was in my twenties I espoused and sought to live out the same values of simplicity, honesty, faithfulness and solidarity with the poor that Claiborne talks about in his book. While I did not live in intentional Christian community, there were several other folks around me who were traveling a similar path. Furthermore, there were plenty of examples such as the Sojourners in Washington, D.C., Jubilee Fellowship in Philadelphia, Reba Place in Evanston and many others outlined in the books like Living Together in A World Falling Apart and The Mustard Seed Conspiracy. There were even a few intentional Christian communities in our Boston neighborhood, even though they all disbanded for one reason or another after a short period of time.
When Cynthia and I got married, we continued to espouse those values, even fasting once a week as both a spiritual discipline, and a reminder of the hunger in the world. We lived simply not only because we had to, but because we felt it to be our calling. We interacted regularly with folks our age who shared the same visions and passions.
However, when I graduated from seminary and became a pastor we lost that sense of interdependent community. Living in church-owned parsonages, we found ourselves in the position of being financially dependent on folks who were not dependent on us. It was an uneven and uneasy kind of community. Furthermore, while we tried to continue our focus on the simplicity and justice, most folks in our congregations espoused a Christian faith that was materialistic and nationalistic. We found ourselves as lone voices in churches and communities in lockstep with the government's drumbeat toward war (the CIA-inspired wars in Central America, Panama, Grenada, and Desert Storm). While there was some solace I could take in being “prophetic,” I see now that we were being shaped nonetheless.
Giving birth to three daughters added another dimension that forced decisions about health care, safety and educational opportunity. When our first daughter was born, we lived in Jersey City, NJ, which was located in an area known as “cancer alley”, so named because the air quality was so toxic that there is a significantly higher cancer rate than elsewhere across the country. The schools were in receivership and homelessness and drug abuse were rampant. A toxic waste dump burned less than a mile from our home. Several times we found homeless people sleeping under our front porch. Both Cynthia and I were involved in work to address these problems, but the birth of a child gave us a responsibility beyond ourselves. Could we subject her to such an environment? We chose to move to a rural community in southern Minnesota where the air and water were still clean, and the streets were safe. Two more children were born. After 5 years we found that environment too sterile and decided to move to the Philadelphia area, in large part because of greater educational and cultural opportunities for our kids.
When I finally left the pastorate in 1997 and we no longer lived in parsonages, we entered the world of homeownership, mortgages, real estate taxes and suburban life. We chose to stay in the same community because at the time it was the least disruptive for our kids. So our kids grew up in suburbia. We did the suburban thing with park league sports, band, and so on. Along the way we accumulated a pile of material things: books, clothes, furniture, gadgets, even a swimming pool that came with our house. The pressure and expectation of providing our kids with the same things and opportunities as their upper middle class friends was tremendous and many times we capitulated.
But if the issue was just about “stuff,” that would be easy enough to deal with. What I realize is that slowly and imperceptibly we have become acclimated to the way of privilege. What I realize is that not only is this lifestyle costly in terms of money, but also in terms of time driving, taking care of my lawn, and generally taking care of all the stuff. Moreover, even if I was to rid myself of all my material things, I could not remove the sense of cultural entitlement that comes from being educated, white and middle class. I don’t begrudge the opportunities I have had, or those that I have provided my children, but I do recognize my racial-cultural-economic standing allows me to make choices that sets me apart and cuts me off from the vast majority of the world’s population.
So we continue to grapple. Cynthia and I have tried to be conscious of our buying habits: we recycle, we spend our money judiciously, and try to live out our commitments in both our personal and professional lives. We have joined an urban church. Cynthia serves the poor as a social worker and I teach students from Philadelphia. We talk about down sizing and possibly moving into the city.
Ironically, throughout this entire time, we have sought to be careful and conscientious, and strive for a life centered on faith, compassion, generosity and justice. We have not been blind to the forces that were shaping us, and yet it happened any way. I take responsibility for my part in the whole process. I am not going to blame the government, the media, other people, or the churches we were part of. Nor am I prone to wallow in guilt.
Yet I find myself wondering would we have made these same decisions had we been surrounded by a like-minded Christian community? Moreover, I wonder what it will take to live out the vision evidenced by the leaders of the new monasticism. Untangling myself from all the material, social and spiritual suburban trappings is not without cost. I run the risk of alienating some of the people closest to me in my search for a life clearly embodying the values and principles of Jesus. I am not complaining, as much as I am expressing an ongoing quandary.
Through it all, the simple way does not seem so simple.
Recently, I read Shane Claiborne's book, The Irresistible Revolution, as well as Schools of Conversion, which has been put together by some of the folks involved in the new monasticism movement. As I read these books, I found myself resonating with their call to a simple lifestyle, centered on the way of Jesus in community with the poor and oppressed. At the same time I found myself looking around at my way of life and all of my stuff, and wondering "How did I stray so far from the path laid out by The Simple Way and groups like them?"
When I was in my twenties I espoused and sought to live out the same values of simplicity, honesty, faithfulness and solidarity with the poor that Claiborne talks about in his book. While I did not live in intentional Christian community, there were several other folks around me who were traveling a similar path. Furthermore, there were plenty of examples such as the Sojourners in Washington, D.C., Jubilee Fellowship in Philadelphia, Reba Place in Evanston and many others outlined in the books like Living Together in A World Falling Apart and The Mustard Seed Conspiracy. There were even a few intentional Christian communities in our Boston neighborhood, even though they all disbanded for one reason or another after a short period of time.
When Cynthia and I got married, we continued to espouse those values, even fasting once a week as both a spiritual discipline, and a reminder of the hunger in the world. We lived simply not only because we had to, but because we felt it to be our calling. We interacted regularly with folks our age who shared the same visions and passions.
However, when I graduated from seminary and became a pastor we lost that sense of interdependent community. Living in church-owned parsonages, we found ourselves in the position of being financially dependent on folks who were not dependent on us. It was an uneven and uneasy kind of community. Furthermore, while we tried to continue our focus on the simplicity and justice, most folks in our congregations espoused a Christian faith that was materialistic and nationalistic. We found ourselves as lone voices in churches and communities in lockstep with the government's drumbeat toward war (the CIA-inspired wars in Central America, Panama, Grenada, and Desert Storm). While there was some solace I could take in being “prophetic,” I see now that we were being shaped nonetheless.
Giving birth to three daughters added another dimension that forced decisions about health care, safety and educational opportunity. When our first daughter was born, we lived in Jersey City, NJ, which was located in an area known as “cancer alley”, so named because the air quality was so toxic that there is a significantly higher cancer rate than elsewhere across the country. The schools were in receivership and homelessness and drug abuse were rampant. A toxic waste dump burned less than a mile from our home. Several times we found homeless people sleeping under our front porch. Both Cynthia and I were involved in work to address these problems, but the birth of a child gave us a responsibility beyond ourselves. Could we subject her to such an environment? We chose to move to a rural community in southern Minnesota where the air and water were still clean, and the streets were safe. Two more children were born. After 5 years we found that environment too sterile and decided to move to the Philadelphia area, in large part because of greater educational and cultural opportunities for our kids.
When I finally left the pastorate in 1997 and we no longer lived in parsonages, we entered the world of homeownership, mortgages, real estate taxes and suburban life. We chose to stay in the same community because at the time it was the least disruptive for our kids. So our kids grew up in suburbia. We did the suburban thing with park league sports, band, and so on. Along the way we accumulated a pile of material things: books, clothes, furniture, gadgets, even a swimming pool that came with our house. The pressure and expectation of providing our kids with the same things and opportunities as their upper middle class friends was tremendous and many times we capitulated.
But if the issue was just about “stuff,” that would be easy enough to deal with. What I realize is that slowly and imperceptibly we have become acclimated to the way of privilege. What I realize is that not only is this lifestyle costly in terms of money, but also in terms of time driving, taking care of my lawn, and generally taking care of all the stuff. Moreover, even if I was to rid myself of all my material things, I could not remove the sense of cultural entitlement that comes from being educated, white and middle class. I don’t begrudge the opportunities I have had, or those that I have provided my children, but I do recognize my racial-cultural-economic standing allows me to make choices that sets me apart and cuts me off from the vast majority of the world’s population.
So we continue to grapple. Cynthia and I have tried to be conscious of our buying habits: we recycle, we spend our money judiciously, and try to live out our commitments in both our personal and professional lives. We have joined an urban church. Cynthia serves the poor as a social worker and I teach students from Philadelphia. We talk about down sizing and possibly moving into the city.
Ironically, throughout this entire time, we have sought to be careful and conscientious, and strive for a life centered on faith, compassion, generosity and justice. We have not been blind to the forces that were shaping us, and yet it happened any way. I take responsibility for my part in the whole process. I am not going to blame the government, the media, other people, or the churches we were part of. Nor am I prone to wallow in guilt.
Yet I find myself wondering would we have made these same decisions had we been surrounded by a like-minded Christian community? Moreover, I wonder what it will take to live out the vision evidenced by the leaders of the new monasticism. Untangling myself from all the material, social and spiritual suburban trappings is not without cost. I run the risk of alienating some of the people closest to me in my search for a life clearly embodying the values and principles of Jesus. I am not complaining, as much as I am expressing an ongoing quandary.
Through it all, the simple way does not seem so simple.
Monday, July 02, 2007
A Re-newed Civil Rights Challenge
On Friday, June 29, the Philadelphia Inquirer had a disturbing juxtaposition of headlines. At the top of the page were the words “Justices limit race-based school plans,” referring to Thursday’s Supreme Court Ruling invalidating programs in Seattle and Louisville that were designed to maintain racial balance by regulating transfers to schools on the basis of race. Right below was the headline “Immigration Bill Crushed,” referring to the vote in the U.S. Senate that defeated Pres. Bush’s second attempt at passing an immigration bill. While referring to different issues, both events seem to point to a new challenge in the civil rights struggle.
In the Supreme Court Case, from all appearances the decision reverses the intent of the 1954 Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS case, which called for the racial desegregation of schools. Yet, Chief Justice Roberts used the 1954 decision to justify the recent court’s decision, saying it was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown.” He went on to say that the U.S. Constitution is “color blind when it comes to race.” What Constitution is he referring to? Is this the Constitution that mandated that African slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person in 1787? Or the one that made slavery legal until 1806? Or the Constitution that was used to justify Jim Crow laws and mandated “separate but equal” (they maintained the separate but not equal part of that)? Is this the Constitution that had to be challenged in the 1954 decision and the 1963 Civil Rights legislation? Now true all of these laws have been changed or repealed, but my point is that the U. S. Constitution has repeatedly been used to justify all sorts of prejudicial and discriminatory actions against people of color. Did Judge Roberts consult the NAACP, the Urban League or the any number of civil rights organizations whose mission it is to monitor the progress of laws like Brown? To suggest that the Constitution has not been used to support white privilege and white power is to deny history, and to not be vigilant to insidious ways racism creeps into our thinking.
Which brings me to the immigration debate. As I have said on this blog, I am no fan of the current immigration legislation. I think any bill that is currently being debated ignores the larger regional issues creating the current situation. However, conservative opponents referred to the proposed guest worker program as “amnesty.” The proposed guest worker program required that undocumented immigrants to pay hefty fines and reapply every two years. I thought “amnesty” was when you got off without penalty, when there were no repercussions for one’s crimes? Paying fines with money you don’t have (especially when you are being paid substandard wages to start with) and being forced to leave the country to reapply, sounds pretty punitive to me.
Now granted, the bill was opposed by both liberals and conservatives, and had many problems with it. But I think there is something deeper going on in this use of the word “amnesty.” Senator Ted Kennedy who supported the bill, along with a number of people across the political spectrum, compared the current immigration debate to the civil rights struggle of the 1950’s and 1960’s. I think Senator Kennedy is on target.
Herein lies the connection between the Supreme Court case and the Senate vote. Even as a certain element of our society seeks to roll back the gains of civil rights, we are facing another civil rights challenge. While most whites in this country like to think we have “put racism behind us” (a contention most people of color would dispute), for some reason we keep tripping over the fact that our society does not treat people of different races equally. For example, in a side bar to the article on the court case, the Inquirer said the court decision would have “little impact” on the Philadelphia region, because we have “residential segregation.” That’s a euphemistic way of saying Philadelphia proper is overwhelmingly poor and people of color, while the suburbs are overwhelmingly white and middle class. We’ve made integration darn near impossible because the kids are in separate, but very unequal, school districts. Racism, legally supported is alive and well.
I wish I had some solutions to these civil rights challenges; like many I keep seeking and listening. In particular I am willing to listen when people of color and civil rights organizations who tell me that any progress we have made in this area is being reversed. Furthermore, I suspect the challenges we face in the current immigration issue are of the same magnitude as the Brown vs. Board of Education case was in 1954. With the way current events have gone, it appears we have cycled back around and haven’t made as much progress as those of us who are white would like to think we have.
In the Supreme Court Case, from all appearances the decision reverses the intent of the 1954 Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS case, which called for the racial desegregation of schools. Yet, Chief Justice Roberts used the 1954 decision to justify the recent court’s decision, saying it was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown.” He went on to say that the U.S. Constitution is “color blind when it comes to race.” What Constitution is he referring to? Is this the Constitution that mandated that African slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person in 1787? Or the one that made slavery legal until 1806? Or the Constitution that was used to justify Jim Crow laws and mandated “separate but equal” (they maintained the separate but not equal part of that)? Is this the Constitution that had to be challenged in the 1954 decision and the 1963 Civil Rights legislation? Now true all of these laws have been changed or repealed, but my point is that the U. S. Constitution has repeatedly been used to justify all sorts of prejudicial and discriminatory actions against people of color. Did Judge Roberts consult the NAACP, the Urban League or the any number of civil rights organizations whose mission it is to monitor the progress of laws like Brown? To suggest that the Constitution has not been used to support white privilege and white power is to deny history, and to not be vigilant to insidious ways racism creeps into our thinking.
Which brings me to the immigration debate. As I have said on this blog, I am no fan of the current immigration legislation. I think any bill that is currently being debated ignores the larger regional issues creating the current situation. However, conservative opponents referred to the proposed guest worker program as “amnesty.” The proposed guest worker program required that undocumented immigrants to pay hefty fines and reapply every two years. I thought “amnesty” was when you got off without penalty, when there were no repercussions for one’s crimes? Paying fines with money you don’t have (especially when you are being paid substandard wages to start with) and being forced to leave the country to reapply, sounds pretty punitive to me.
Now granted, the bill was opposed by both liberals and conservatives, and had many problems with it. But I think there is something deeper going on in this use of the word “amnesty.” Senator Ted Kennedy who supported the bill, along with a number of people across the political spectrum, compared the current immigration debate to the civil rights struggle of the 1950’s and 1960’s. I think Senator Kennedy is on target.
Herein lies the connection between the Supreme Court case and the Senate vote. Even as a certain element of our society seeks to roll back the gains of civil rights, we are facing another civil rights challenge. While most whites in this country like to think we have “put racism behind us” (a contention most people of color would dispute), for some reason we keep tripping over the fact that our society does not treat people of different races equally. For example, in a side bar to the article on the court case, the Inquirer said the court decision would have “little impact” on the Philadelphia region, because we have “residential segregation.” That’s a euphemistic way of saying Philadelphia proper is overwhelmingly poor and people of color, while the suburbs are overwhelmingly white and middle class. We’ve made integration darn near impossible because the kids are in separate, but very unequal, school districts. Racism, legally supported is alive and well.
I wish I had some solutions to these civil rights challenges; like many I keep seeking and listening. In particular I am willing to listen when people of color and civil rights organizations who tell me that any progress we have made in this area is being reversed. Furthermore, I suspect the challenges we face in the current immigration issue are of the same magnitude as the Brown vs. Board of Education case was in 1954. With the way current events have gone, it appears we have cycled back around and haven’t made as much progress as those of us who are white would like to think we have.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Reflections on the Kensington Fire
I had just been planning to post some reflections on Shane Claiborne’s book, Irresistible Revolution, when I learned that Shane and his community, the Simple Way had been caught in a terrible warehouse fire that has burned for several days this week in the Kensington section of Philadelphia and temporarily displaced over 100 people and close to 30 families. At this point eight families lost their homes. Among those affected were members of the Simple Way . Two members lost all their belongings. In addition a community center, an after school program, an arts center, and a t-shirt micro-business all connected the Simple Way were lost in the fire. A full description with video can be found on the Simple Way’s web site: (http://www.thesimpleway.org/).
For those who are not familiar with Shane Claiborne or the Simple Way, let me provide some background. Over ten years ago a group of Eastern University students got involved with the Kensington Welfare Rights organization during an occupation of an abandoned Roman Catholic cathedral to protest the lack of affordable and available housing for the poor. The students were so changed by the experience that upon graduation they relocated to Kensington to form an intentional Christian community. Their purpose was to live in community with the impoverished people of Kensington, to try to be a positive influence in the neighborhood, and “to discover another way of doing life.” The Simple Way is part a movement called the “new monasticism,” a network of small house churches and groups across the country who have sought to integrate a concern for positive social change, solidarity with the poor, intentional community and classic Christian spirituality. For ten years the Simple Way, who calls it self an “a 501c3 anti-profit organization” have lived and worked in that community.
In Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne tells the story of the Simple Way, and raises some poignant and powerful questions about the nature of our society and the implications of our lifestyles and value choices. I have been challenged by the book and was going to share some of my struggles, but then the fire hit. So I will save those thoughts for another day.
One of the things that impresses me about the new monasticism in general and the Simple Way in particular, is that they are not just another group of liberal Christian do-gooders come to “help the poor.” Claiborne does not talk about “serving the poor” or ‘helping the poor,” but rather about living in interdependent community with the people of Kensington and loving them. He makes the point that poverty is not an abstraction, but rather people with whom one shares life. He says that the tragedy of economic disparity in our country is not merely the maldistribution of wealth, but also that poor people and rich people do not know each other because they literally live in different worlds. If the poor, middle class and rich all lived in proximity, redistribution of wealth would happen more naturally and spontaneously. As he writes:
"I am not a communist or a capitalist. As one person put it: 'When we truly discover love, capitalism will not be possible and Marxism will not be necessary.'”
Unfortunately, the risk of living interdependently with poor people in the current economic environment is that one suffers the indignities and vulnerability to tragedy that poor people face every day.
Thus, the Simple Way lost everything in the Kensington fire because they had consciously committed themselves to be part of the fabric of that community, and now that fabric has been severely damaged. Because of its worldwide network of friends and supporters, the Simple Way will be able to generate a great deal of support for the people of Kensington, and will most likely find a way to regroup and start over. Having experienced a similar fire 30 years ago (though not the personal loss) when I was living in Boston, I know that the emotional trauma of such an event is as difficult to overcome for a community as is helping people regain some material and financial stability in their lives. But in time, if they choose to do so, the people of Kensington and the Simple Way will be able to move forward with their lives.
The sad thing is that if it were not for the Simple Way, I and thousands of others would have regarded the Kensington fire as just another tragic and awful event that daily occur in low income communities across the nation and world… and then we would have gone on with our lives because we weren’t affected. Ironically and sadly, the Simple Way’s tragedy has brought home the very point Shane Claiborne makes: that we who are middle and upper class are largely disconnected from those folks who are poor, and do not see or appreciate the humanity of those folks who live in places like Kensington.
For those who are not familiar with Shane Claiborne or the Simple Way, let me provide some background. Over ten years ago a group of Eastern University students got involved with the Kensington Welfare Rights organization during an occupation of an abandoned Roman Catholic cathedral to protest the lack of affordable and available housing for the poor. The students were so changed by the experience that upon graduation they relocated to Kensington to form an intentional Christian community. Their purpose was to live in community with the impoverished people of Kensington, to try to be a positive influence in the neighborhood, and “to discover another way of doing life.” The Simple Way is part a movement called the “new monasticism,” a network of small house churches and groups across the country who have sought to integrate a concern for positive social change, solidarity with the poor, intentional community and classic Christian spirituality. For ten years the Simple Way, who calls it self an “a 501c3 anti-profit organization” have lived and worked in that community.
In Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne tells the story of the Simple Way, and raises some poignant and powerful questions about the nature of our society and the implications of our lifestyles and value choices. I have been challenged by the book and was going to share some of my struggles, but then the fire hit. So I will save those thoughts for another day.
One of the things that impresses me about the new monasticism in general and the Simple Way in particular, is that they are not just another group of liberal Christian do-gooders come to “help the poor.” Claiborne does not talk about “serving the poor” or ‘helping the poor,” but rather about living in interdependent community with the people of Kensington and loving them. He makes the point that poverty is not an abstraction, but rather people with whom one shares life. He says that the tragedy of economic disparity in our country is not merely the maldistribution of wealth, but also that poor people and rich people do not know each other because they literally live in different worlds. If the poor, middle class and rich all lived in proximity, redistribution of wealth would happen more naturally and spontaneously. As he writes:
"I am not a communist or a capitalist. As one person put it: 'When we truly discover love, capitalism will not be possible and Marxism will not be necessary.'”
Unfortunately, the risk of living interdependently with poor people in the current economic environment is that one suffers the indignities and vulnerability to tragedy that poor people face every day.
Thus, the Simple Way lost everything in the Kensington fire because they had consciously committed themselves to be part of the fabric of that community, and now that fabric has been severely damaged. Because of its worldwide network of friends and supporters, the Simple Way will be able to generate a great deal of support for the people of Kensington, and will most likely find a way to regroup and start over. Having experienced a similar fire 30 years ago (though not the personal loss) when I was living in Boston, I know that the emotional trauma of such an event is as difficult to overcome for a community as is helping people regain some material and financial stability in their lives. But in time, if they choose to do so, the people of Kensington and the Simple Way will be able to move forward with their lives.
The sad thing is that if it were not for the Simple Way, I and thousands of others would have regarded the Kensington fire as just another tragic and awful event that daily occur in low income communities across the nation and world… and then we would have gone on with our lives because we weren’t affected. Ironically and sadly, the Simple Way’s tragedy has brought home the very point Shane Claiborne makes: that we who are middle and upper class are largely disconnected from those folks who are poor, and do not see or appreciate the humanity of those folks who live in places like Kensington.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Immigration: Solving the Wrong Problem
This week Congress’ attempt at passing a comprehensive immigration bill went down the tubes. The bill was an attempt to find a compromise on an issue that has deeply divided the Congress and the nation. The debate on immigration has focused on two questions: (1) How are we going to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants? And (2) What are we going to do with 12 million undocumented immigrants already here? And yet, even if it had somehow passed, the bill would only have been a short term band-aid at best.
Why? We are not solving the correct problem, or to paraphrase Stephen Covey, the author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, “The way we see the problem is the problem.” To date the debate in Congress has characterized the immigration issue as a national issue, but in fact the issue is a regional issue. Until our leaders are willing to engage the business community and the other governments involved in seeking a transnational and just agreement, no reasonable or effective solution can be found.
Nearly a year ago(9/4/2006), David Sirota of the San Francisco Chronicle (among others) asked the pertinent question:
"Why do so many Mexicans come to America in the first place? The answers to this question revolve around the concept of supply and demand – and they tell us about how to address illegal immigration and overcome the core economic challenges facing middle class America.”
Fact: Many Mexican are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States illegally because they are desperate to find a better life. In supply and demand terms, the supply of jobs in Mexico that one can subsist on is far less than the demand for such jobs."
The President, the Congress, and we the American people are failing to address this real issue of why people are coming here: incredible suffering and injustice propagated by NAFTA and opportunistic corporations.
In 1992 the Congress led by Pres. Bill Clinton, passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was designed to allow for the free flow of capital and goods/services across the Canadian, Mexican and U.S. borders. However, the agreement did not allow for was the free flow of labor. In short NAFTA gave the corporations the ability to flow freely across borders without allowing workers to do the same.
NAFTA enabled unscrupulous companies to move their operations from the U.S. to Mexico, thereby avoiding environmental regulations and bypassing workplace safety rules. Moreover, these same companies were able to escape paying U.S. workers living wage and exploit cheap Mexican labor where people would work for $5-7 a day. At the same time U.S. farmers and retailers like Wal-Mart were able to flood Mexican markets with American goods that put local Mexican workers and farmers out of business. Since NAFTA was passed, nearly 800,000 jobs have been lost in Mexico and 1 million jobs in the United States. The winners in this deal have not been the workers, but rather large transnational corporations, large retailers, a well-entrenched Mexican elite and U.S. employers who now exploiting undocumented workers in the U.S. with “under the table” sub-minimum wages. No wonder the U.S. business community likes President Bush’s bill – it serves their interests even as it continues to exploit the working class folks on both sides of the border. (See New York Times 2/18/2007)
The sad truth is that without significant pressure from citizen and labor groups, most leaders in the U.S. and Mexico will not address the real issue. The current situation serves the business community quite fine, thank you. The media and the Congress (who are controlled by business interests) conveniently divert us with the meaningless debates about a 700 mile long border fence and the hiring of more border agents. Vigilante groups spout words of hate in the name of patriotism. Conservative groups and labor unions fight the bill seeking to preserve their special interests and miss the larger picture. And all the time, some very powerful people are profiting handsomely..
Richard Alba, sociology professor from the University of Albany (NY) has pointed out that the U.S. could learn a great deal from the European Union (EU). When the EU countries opened their borders to free trade, they also opened up their borders for workers to travel freely as well. Instead of destroying national economies, it strengthened them, because the EU leaders recognized their challenges were regional rather than national. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has either unconsciously or deliberately failed to learn from the Europeans. (See http://borderbattles/ssrc.org/Alba/printable.html)
Instead migrants are characterized as “lawbreakers” and accused of “taking jobs away from Americans,” when the real criminals sit in government buildings and corporate offices. Until we are willing to address the real “illegals” and address the root of the problem, nothing will get accomplished.
Sadly, what I am saying here is neither new nor novel. A simple Google search with the key words “Immigration” and “NAFTA” led me to numerous reputable sources from commentators far more knowledgeable than me. I am reminded of a saying from Harry Nilsson’s classic story “The Point”: “We see what we want to see, and hear what we want to hear.” Until we want to address the real problem, we will only see mirages and tilt at windmills.
Why? We are not solving the correct problem, or to paraphrase Stephen Covey, the author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, “The way we see the problem is the problem.” To date the debate in Congress has characterized the immigration issue as a national issue, but in fact the issue is a regional issue. Until our leaders are willing to engage the business community and the other governments involved in seeking a transnational and just agreement, no reasonable or effective solution can be found.
Nearly a year ago(9/4/2006), David Sirota of the San Francisco Chronicle (among others) asked the pertinent question:
"Why do so many Mexicans come to America in the first place? The answers to this question revolve around the concept of supply and demand – and they tell us about how to address illegal immigration and overcome the core economic challenges facing middle class America.”
Fact: Many Mexican are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States illegally because they are desperate to find a better life. In supply and demand terms, the supply of jobs in Mexico that one can subsist on is far less than the demand for such jobs."
The President, the Congress, and we the American people are failing to address this real issue of why people are coming here: incredible suffering and injustice propagated by NAFTA and opportunistic corporations.
In 1992 the Congress led by Pres. Bill Clinton, passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was designed to allow for the free flow of capital and goods/services across the Canadian, Mexican and U.S. borders. However, the agreement did not allow for was the free flow of labor. In short NAFTA gave the corporations the ability to flow freely across borders without allowing workers to do the same.
NAFTA enabled unscrupulous companies to move their operations from the U.S. to Mexico, thereby avoiding environmental regulations and bypassing workplace safety rules. Moreover, these same companies were able to escape paying U.S. workers living wage and exploit cheap Mexican labor where people would work for $5-7 a day. At the same time U.S. farmers and retailers like Wal-Mart were able to flood Mexican markets with American goods that put local Mexican workers and farmers out of business. Since NAFTA was passed, nearly 800,000 jobs have been lost in Mexico and 1 million jobs in the United States. The winners in this deal have not been the workers, but rather large transnational corporations, large retailers, a well-entrenched Mexican elite and U.S. employers who now exploiting undocumented workers in the U.S. with “under the table” sub-minimum wages. No wonder the U.S. business community likes President Bush’s bill – it serves their interests even as it continues to exploit the working class folks on both sides of the border. (See New York Times 2/18/2007)
The sad truth is that without significant pressure from citizen and labor groups, most leaders in the U.S. and Mexico will not address the real issue. The current situation serves the business community quite fine, thank you. The media and the Congress (who are controlled by business interests) conveniently divert us with the meaningless debates about a 700 mile long border fence and the hiring of more border agents. Vigilante groups spout words of hate in the name of patriotism. Conservative groups and labor unions fight the bill seeking to preserve their special interests and miss the larger picture. And all the time, some very powerful people are profiting handsomely..
Richard Alba, sociology professor from the University of Albany (NY) has pointed out that the U.S. could learn a great deal from the European Union (EU). When the EU countries opened their borders to free trade, they also opened up their borders for workers to travel freely as well. Instead of destroying national economies, it strengthened them, because the EU leaders recognized their challenges were regional rather than national. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has either unconsciously or deliberately failed to learn from the Europeans. (See http://borderbattles/ssrc.org/Alba/printable.html)
Instead migrants are characterized as “lawbreakers” and accused of “taking jobs away from Americans,” when the real criminals sit in government buildings and corporate offices. Until we are willing to address the real “illegals” and address the root of the problem, nothing will get accomplished.
Sadly, what I am saying here is neither new nor novel. A simple Google search with the key words “Immigration” and “NAFTA” led me to numerous reputable sources from commentators far more knowledgeable than me. I am reminded of a saying from Harry Nilsson’s classic story “The Point”: “We see what we want to see, and hear what we want to hear.” Until we want to address the real problem, we will only see mirages and tilt at windmills.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Don Imus - Duke Lacrosse Connection
(Note: I had orginally planned to post this entry early last week, but delayed due to the Virginia Tech tragedy.- DB)
During the week following Easter two distinct but (in my mind) related announcements were made: CBS announced that Don Imus would no longer be aired on their radio stations and the Attorney General of North Carolina announced that rape charges against three Duke lacrosse players had been dropped. A great deal was made of the Imus case and its relationship to other “shock jock” radio hosts, as well as rappers and liberal commentators who have made equally offensive statements and yet are still on the air. At the same time, the CBS show “60 Minutes” aired extensive interviews with three Duke lacrosse players. However, to my knowledge no commentators noted the serendipitous connection between these two events.
A cynic might say, “Well the white guys came out even. They won one and they lost one.” I think it goes deeper than that. Like many people, I was glad to see Don Imus taken off the air, and I could not help but notice the irony that Don Imus is only one among many commentators who engage in various forms of destructive and degrading speech. One can only wonder how quick MSNBC and CBS would have been to fire Imus if the sponsors had continued to back him. But here is the connection I see to the Duke case: Imus was fired for his sexist and racist remarks and the Duke players got in trouble with the law because they were engaging in sexist and racist behavior.
As a Duke University alum, I closely followed the Duke lacrosse case. Throughout the last year, to my knowledge neither the players nor their parents have publicly commented on the fact that the alleged rape occurred at a party where a bunch of well-to-do white college guys hired a African-American stripper to “perform” at their drunken party. The fact that there was a party and that the young woman was hired to come there has never been disputed. The players and their parents, so intent on proving their innocence, failed to note that there never would have been a rape case if there hadn’t been a party in the first place. These guys may have been victims of politically motivated district attorney, but they were also eager participants in behavior that clearly demeaned and degraded others. As much as they talked about the difficulty of “rebuilding their lives,” they have come out relatively unscathed. One of them is already working on Wall Street, [and the other two are playing lacrosse at other colleges]*. Please forgive me, if the tears aren’t flowing.
*[NOTE: I was in error when I stated the other two players were currently playing lacrosse at other colleges. As the one comment-er said, they have not done so yet. Duke has offered to allow them to return, but they will probably go elsewhere. In all likelihood next year they will be playing for other schools. I stand corrected. D.B.]
After Don Imus was fired, the president of CBS said that the media giant had to “change the culture” that would allow such statements to occur. The culture issue goes much deeper than a few degrading words. The culture issue goes to the fact that the media will use and abuse others when it suits their purpose or makes them money. The culture issue looks at the way the rich can exploit the poor and come away unscathed (What if a black lacrosse team had hired a white stripper; would anyone have cared if players had been unfairly charged?). The culture issue reveals that there are different sets of rules for those who have access to money, power and high priced lawyers, and those who do not.
I for one, am sick of the hypocrisy, and will do what I can (as a well-to-do white guy from Duke) to highlight the fact that racism, sexism and just general human meanness is immoral, unethical and intolerable in any form.
During the week following Easter two distinct but (in my mind) related announcements were made: CBS announced that Don Imus would no longer be aired on their radio stations and the Attorney General of North Carolina announced that rape charges against three Duke lacrosse players had been dropped. A great deal was made of the Imus case and its relationship to other “shock jock” radio hosts, as well as rappers and liberal commentators who have made equally offensive statements and yet are still on the air. At the same time, the CBS show “60 Minutes” aired extensive interviews with three Duke lacrosse players. However, to my knowledge no commentators noted the serendipitous connection between these two events.
A cynic might say, “Well the white guys came out even. They won one and they lost one.” I think it goes deeper than that. Like many people, I was glad to see Don Imus taken off the air, and I could not help but notice the irony that Don Imus is only one among many commentators who engage in various forms of destructive and degrading speech. One can only wonder how quick MSNBC and CBS would have been to fire Imus if the sponsors had continued to back him. But here is the connection I see to the Duke case: Imus was fired for his sexist and racist remarks and the Duke players got in trouble with the law because they were engaging in sexist and racist behavior.
As a Duke University alum, I closely followed the Duke lacrosse case. Throughout the last year, to my knowledge neither the players nor their parents have publicly commented on the fact that the alleged rape occurred at a party where a bunch of well-to-do white college guys hired a African-American stripper to “perform” at their drunken party. The fact that there was a party and that the young woman was hired to come there has never been disputed. The players and their parents, so intent on proving their innocence, failed to note that there never would have been a rape case if there hadn’t been a party in the first place. These guys may have been victims of politically motivated district attorney, but they were also eager participants in behavior that clearly demeaned and degraded others. As much as they talked about the difficulty of “rebuilding their lives,” they have come out relatively unscathed. One of them is already working on Wall Street, [and the other two are playing lacrosse at other colleges]*. Please forgive me, if the tears aren’t flowing.
*[NOTE: I was in error when I stated the other two players were currently playing lacrosse at other colleges. As the one comment-er said, they have not done so yet. Duke has offered to allow them to return, but they will probably go elsewhere. In all likelihood next year they will be playing for other schools. I stand corrected. D.B.]
After Don Imus was fired, the president of CBS said that the media giant had to “change the culture” that would allow such statements to occur. The culture issue goes much deeper than a few degrading words. The culture issue goes to the fact that the media will use and abuse others when it suits their purpose or makes them money. The culture issue looks at the way the rich can exploit the poor and come away unscathed (What if a black lacrosse team had hired a white stripper; would anyone have cared if players had been unfairly charged?). The culture issue reveals that there are different sets of rules for those who have access to money, power and high priced lawyers, and those who do not.
I for one, am sick of the hypocrisy, and will do what I can (as a well-to-do white guy from Duke) to highlight the fact that racism, sexism and just general human meanness is immoral, unethical and intolerable in any form.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Prayer for the folks at Virginia Tech
Words can not express the sadness I feel for the victims of the shooting rampage that occurred at Virginia Tech on April 16. As a parent of three daughters, I can only think that it could just as easily been one of them. I imagine it will be years before some of the survivors and the victims' families can put this in perspective.I don't know the shooter's name, but his family must be in deep pain as well.
What irks me is the attempt of the media to find someone to blame. Was the school "secure enough?" Did the the shooter's teachers pick up on some trouble in the his life? Did the student's peers notice something was a bit off with the shooter? And why didn't they go to authorities? It is as if in our search for answers, we have to find someone to blame.
Random violence this can not be predicted nor controlled. At the risk of appearing to be fatalistic or overly spiritual, this is the essence of sin. Sin in its most vile expression twists and distorts a personality to perform inhuman acts. Now by bringing up sin, it may appear that I am blaming the shooter, and perhaps I am. But he too may have been a victim of sin's perverted force. He obviously was very troubled young man, and perhaps the victim of some destructive words or actions. When I speak of sin, I speak of that force within human beings and at large in the world, that pulls us in directions away from the way God created us. We were created to reflect God's goodness and love, not destroy other human beings.
Violence of all kinds is and expression of sin, but random violence makes us aware of just how pervasive and pernicious sin can be. One thing we saw and learned from the Nickel Mines tragedy last fall, was the power of a spiritual community to find comfort in God's presence through each other. Moreover, we saw the power of a God-based community to find the resources to forgive, rebuild and move ahead. Now one can rightly assume that in the families of the Nickel Mines victims, there is deep sense of grief and loss that will take years to heal. But they claimed the comfort of God to be real in their lives through their faith in God.
In the face of the VT crisis, we must be called to prayer. While I am not a deeply prayerful person, I do believe that when we pray, we tap into a reservoir of love, peace, and comfort that in the words of the apostle Paul, "surpasses all understanding." In the face of such spiritual forces, I am drawn to prayer, not as a sign of helplessness, but as a call to draw from the wells of God's spirit to face the challenges ahead. I pray for the folks of Virginia Tech. God draw near to them in their time of need, and help them to find solace and strength in the days ahead. And may this tragedy remind us that our work with God in ending violence has only begun.
What irks me is the attempt of the media to find someone to blame. Was the school "secure enough?" Did the the shooter's teachers pick up on some trouble in the his life? Did the student's peers notice something was a bit off with the shooter? And why didn't they go to authorities? It is as if in our search for answers, we have to find someone to blame.
Random violence this can not be predicted nor controlled. At the risk of appearing to be fatalistic or overly spiritual, this is the essence of sin. Sin in its most vile expression twists and distorts a personality to perform inhuman acts. Now by bringing up sin, it may appear that I am blaming the shooter, and perhaps I am. But he too may have been a victim of sin's perverted force. He obviously was very troubled young man, and perhaps the victim of some destructive words or actions. When I speak of sin, I speak of that force within human beings and at large in the world, that pulls us in directions away from the way God created us. We were created to reflect God's goodness and love, not destroy other human beings.
Violence of all kinds is and expression of sin, but random violence makes us aware of just how pervasive and pernicious sin can be. One thing we saw and learned from the Nickel Mines tragedy last fall, was the power of a spiritual community to find comfort in God's presence through each other. Moreover, we saw the power of a God-based community to find the resources to forgive, rebuild and move ahead. Now one can rightly assume that in the families of the Nickel Mines victims, there is deep sense of grief and loss that will take years to heal. But they claimed the comfort of God to be real in their lives through their faith in God.
In the face of the VT crisis, we must be called to prayer. While I am not a deeply prayerful person, I do believe that when we pray, we tap into a reservoir of love, peace, and comfort that in the words of the apostle Paul, "surpasses all understanding." In the face of such spiritual forces, I am drawn to prayer, not as a sign of helplessness, but as a call to draw from the wells of God's spirit to face the challenges ahead. I pray for the folks of Virginia Tech. God draw near to them in their time of need, and help them to find solace and strength in the days ahead. And may this tragedy remind us that our work with God in ending violence has only begun.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Hidden Trauma of War
Dear Friends,
I recently was sent this article from the Quaker Economist. It is a personal letter outlining the effects of Post Tramautic Stress Disroder on a society at war. What is particularly poignant is the author's analysis of coded PTSD talk which continues the cycle of war.
I share it with you as yet another reason this war needs to end.
Go to http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE156-EN-Trauma.html
Drick Boyd
I recently was sent this article from the Quaker Economist. It is a personal letter outlining the effects of Post Tramautic Stress Disroder on a society at war. What is particularly poignant is the author's analysis of coded PTSD talk which continues the cycle of war.
I share it with you as yet another reason this war needs to end.
Go to http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE156-EN-Trauma.html
Drick Boyd
Monday, April 09, 2007
Breaking Ranks
Have you noticed the mantra that being uttered by all parties in the debate about U.S. military involvement in the Middle East? George W. Bush uses it. Nancy Pelosi uses it. So do all the presidential hopefuls from John McCain and Rudy Guiliani to Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards. And when Rosie O’Donnell spoke in favor a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq on her show, “The View,” one of her critics commented that if she wanted to have any credibility with the American people she better use this mantra. What is this sacred cow, this holy utterance, this inviolable commitment to which all true blue Americans must submit (especially if they are politicians or celebrities)? It is those magic words “support the troops.” You can be for or against withdrawal, you can be Democrat, Republican or Independent, you can be politician or celebrity; none of those things matter --- the one thing you must do is “support the troops.”
So it is with trepidation that I write the words: I don’t support the troops. I have not supported the reasons the troops are over in Iraq from the beginning. From the beginning the cloak of democracy and freedom were placed over the real motivation, which was control of the oil fields and the possibility of huge profits for Halliburton, Exxon and other mega-corporations (who by the way were doing quite well as a result of this effort). I don’t support the strategy that says that we can impose democracy on a people whose culture and religious sensibilities are largely undemocratic. I don’t buy the line that somehow by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these soldiers are “protecting my freedom.” I don’t support the notion that by seeking to get the terrorist there, that we somehow will stop the possibility of their bombing us here. I don’t support the practices of the military recruiters who lure unwitting young people with the myths of a GI bill- supported education, and vocational training while “serving your country.” Nor do I support the decision that those young people make to join the military no matter how misguided or deprived they are in their present situations.
Now that is not to say I wish the soldiers ill. Nor does it mean that I don’t care if they come back alive; I would much rather they come back whole rather than physically or psychologically maimed or in a body bag. Of course I care. Every time I see the young face of another soldier killed in the line of combat, I grieve. However, I can’t say I “support” why they died, nor do I support the decision of their comrades to keep up the fight. Nor, can I buy the line that they “died to preserve our freedom.” They didn’t die for me; I didn’t support their going in the first place. To me their deaths are a waste in a misguided effort led by duplicitous leaders.
The more we talk about “supporting the troops” but not the war, the more we contribute to the doublespeak that confuses and confounds efforts to find a way to peace in that area. Military solutions are not in the cards, and especially military solutions involving the United States. Our presence in the region is a lightening rod for violence and an embarrassment to other countries who might step up and have a hand in bringing some order to Iraq. We went in without global or regional support and that has not changed. George W. thought we could bully our way to democracy and peace, and it has become a quagmire and a disaster. The sooner we get our troops out of there, the better the chances will be for some sort of order to be restored. There are no guarantees, but there is no way as long as the U.S. is there that peace will ever be attained. Supporting the troops’ efforts to do whatever they are doing is a failed policy.
So, I am breaking ranks: I don’t support the troops. I am saying the emperor has no clothes. I am saying supporting this war at any level by “supporting the troops” only contributes to the travesties that have already occurred. Call me crazy, unpatriotic, ungrateful, uninformed, uncaring or whatever negative appellation you can find. I am not contributing the madness any more – I don’t support the troops.
So it is with trepidation that I write the words: I don’t support the troops. I have not supported the reasons the troops are over in Iraq from the beginning. From the beginning the cloak of democracy and freedom were placed over the real motivation, which was control of the oil fields and the possibility of huge profits for Halliburton, Exxon and other mega-corporations (who by the way were doing quite well as a result of this effort). I don’t support the strategy that says that we can impose democracy on a people whose culture and religious sensibilities are largely undemocratic. I don’t buy the line that somehow by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these soldiers are “protecting my freedom.” I don’t support the notion that by seeking to get the terrorist there, that we somehow will stop the possibility of their bombing us here. I don’t support the practices of the military recruiters who lure unwitting young people with the myths of a GI bill- supported education, and vocational training while “serving your country.” Nor do I support the decision that those young people make to join the military no matter how misguided or deprived they are in their present situations.
Now that is not to say I wish the soldiers ill. Nor does it mean that I don’t care if they come back alive; I would much rather they come back whole rather than physically or psychologically maimed or in a body bag. Of course I care. Every time I see the young face of another soldier killed in the line of combat, I grieve. However, I can’t say I “support” why they died, nor do I support the decision of their comrades to keep up the fight. Nor, can I buy the line that they “died to preserve our freedom.” They didn’t die for me; I didn’t support their going in the first place. To me their deaths are a waste in a misguided effort led by duplicitous leaders.
The more we talk about “supporting the troops” but not the war, the more we contribute to the doublespeak that confuses and confounds efforts to find a way to peace in that area. Military solutions are not in the cards, and especially military solutions involving the United States. Our presence in the region is a lightening rod for violence and an embarrassment to other countries who might step up and have a hand in bringing some order to Iraq. We went in without global or regional support and that has not changed. George W. thought we could bully our way to democracy and peace, and it has become a quagmire and a disaster. The sooner we get our troops out of there, the better the chances will be for some sort of order to be restored. There are no guarantees, but there is no way as long as the U.S. is there that peace will ever be attained. Supporting the troops’ efforts to do whatever they are doing is a failed policy.
So, I am breaking ranks: I don’t support the troops. I am saying the emperor has no clothes. I am saying supporting this war at any level by “supporting the troops” only contributes to the travesties that have already occurred. Call me crazy, unpatriotic, ungrateful, uninformed, uncaring or whatever negative appellation you can find. I am not contributing the madness any more – I don’t support the troops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)