The issue is not, “What must I do in order to secure my salvation?” but rather, “What does God require of me in response to the needs of others?” It is not, “How can I be virtuous?” But “How can I participate in the struggle of the oppressed for a more just world?” - Walter Wink
Language is an important tool in shaping perception. The "toxic assets" of the 2008 financial crisis are now "legacy assets." A common practice discussed in a piece of legislation becomes a "death panel," and quickly garners opposition. One of the most prominent--and de-humanizing--uses of language is within the immigration debate. I saw this on Racewire today regarding the use of the word "illegal":
The real lie here is that we’re all illegal, and there’s no way of
reframing this to make it anything but the truth. The United States
began as a colony by a colonial empire, yet we behave as if we’ve
always been here. As if the sins of our past conquest make us better
than the crisis of globalization we’ve helped to create and the people
caught within it. The whole notion of “illegal” is an artificial
construction designed to dehumanize, deprioritize and deport without
any tugging on our American heartstring. I’m not an “illegal” because
I’ve run a red light, pirated software, cheated on taxes, or am Queer –
because these actions don’t violate the notion that I’m still an
American citizen. But take away that citizenship, built on a false
sense of global security and conquest, and somehow I’m not human?
Working within the framework of "illegal" vs. "legal" imposes a status on a group of people that is reminiscent of our country's history of slavery and is based on a broken, draconian, outdated system of laws. I'm trying to break out of this framework, whether with immigration, healthcare, or the economy, because words can have so much power without us even realizing it.
...so says a headline of a NY Times article regarding Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. I didn't pay nearly enough attention to Alito and Roberts' confirmation hearings, but did anyone ask THEM whether their identity would "distort" their judicial decisionmaking? When a white male Supreme Court appointee is in front of the Senate, I'm pretty sure his background, his race, and his gender are not issues. No one asks whether a white male nominee's privilege, power, and majority position in society will affect his decisions. In fact, a recent piece in the New Yorker discussed how Chief Justice John Roberts has more often ruled in favor of the strong and powerful as opposed to the weak.
Our lawmakers and the media are more likely to evaluate a white male nominee solely on merit--his accomplishments, education, and past decisions. A Latina woman appointee has to repeatedly assure the Senate that she would apply the law to the facts, nothing more and nothing less.
Another aspect of this confirmation process that has bothered me was highlighted in a feature last week in NY Times Magazine about women on the Supreme Court. An interviewer asked Justice Ginsberg whether the male justices can be more abrasive without notice or remark from others, while it is more attention-drawing for female judges to be abrasive. Justice Ginsberg responded, "Yes, the notion that Sonia is an aggressive questioner — what else is new? Has anybody watched Scalia or Breyer up on the bench?"
Senators have questioned Sotomayor regarding the fact that she can be "a bit of a bully." Please. These people need to go sit in on an oral argument at the Supreme Court. Sotomayor will fit right in.
I just read over the Supreme Court decision that came down yesterday regarding the New Haven Caucasian firefighters' discrimination lawsuit. I especially liked Justice Ginsburg's dissent and her reference to "empathy." She is great! Although, I may be affected by the fact that one of her former clerks taught my constitutional law class last semester!
I read The Accidental American by Rinku Sen and Fekkak Mamdouh earlier this year. It's about Fekkak's journey of immigrating to the US, working in the restaurant industry, and organizing immigrant workers to fight for their rights, but it's also about immigration in general. Although a bit disorganized, the book does provide one of the most succint and helpful explanations of why we are in this situation today, especially with regard to immigrants from Mexico. I still have a copy if anyone would like to read it.
Racewire has a video up of Fekkak. It can be found here. I like his comment that we cannot ship the restaurant jobs to China. A lot of our jobs have been moved elsewhere, where the pay is less and the labor conditions are less stringent. But it is impossible to ship labor in the hotel/restaurant sector, construction, and other service industries overseas, which is why we need to be vigilant about making sure workers are not being exploited.
I just caught this on NPR: Latino USA's report on Siler City, North Carolina's changing demographics, called "Mayberry Meets Mexico." A town that was traditionally black and white has seen an influx of Hispanic immigrants, and many are none too happy. One resident interviewed compared the newer members of his community to roaches, although he prefaced his remark with "I don't mean to be racist or anything..." Another resident complained that she feels like a minority now, and frankly admitted that she doesn't like it. I am continually amazed at the things that people feel are acceptable to say about Hispanics in the U.S.
As a side note, during the report, all I could think about was this silly Rascal Flatts song, "I Miss Mayberry," which includes the line, "I miss Mayberry, when everything was black and white." OMG I didn't know Rascal Flatts was that racist! :)
Emily Hunter McGowin has an excellent post regarding evangelicals' respose to Obama's victory. She does a great job of pointing out how the negative, fearful reaction betrays a trust placed more in our government than in God. Jesus makes it clear that our kingdom is not of this world. (I wish I would have had a copy of Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President after the 2004 election, but I digress).
Emily also points out how uncharitable evangelicals' responses are in light of such an historic election. I unfortunately saw a lot of this when I logged on to my Facebook account today. Emily writes:
Finally, I was deeply disturbed by evangelicals' overall uncharitable response to what is an historic moment in American history, no matter your political affiliation or religious convictions. One of our country's "original sins" was the mass enslavement of an entire race of human beings, for no other reason than their skin color and physical features. The text of the Constitution itself considers black African slaves only three-fifths of a person. This infamous blot on an otherwise ingenious founding document (called the “constitutional compromise”) is an embarrassment to all Americans, let alone Christian Americans who proclaim the equal worth of all before God.
But now, US citizens have elected the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya to be their President. Regardless of one's political leanings, this is an amazing thing and a reason to celebrate. No, the plague of racism in America is not defeated in this historic event. And, yes, there are plenty of reasons for evangelicals to be concerned about the possible future decisions of our new President and his counselors. But, for now, at this moment, evangelicals should be able to celebrate a great step forward in the cause of justice.
Anyway, I should have remained blissfully ignorant and avoided Facebook, because the tone here in the Chicago area is so fun! I was in the Loop Tuesday night for class, and it was awesome to see such enthusiasm for our political process. I know I complained earlier about McCain/Palin supporters not knowing anything about their actual policies, but I think people have overall become more involved and informed, which is encouraging. We need to keep this up so as to not have a repeat of the past few years!!
Weekends for me are all about (besides insane amounts of reading) catching up on these: The Daily Show episodes. They're nice after another harrowing week of the Socratic method!
At the Democatic National Convention, 44% of the delegates were non-white. African-Americans composed 24%, and Hispanics 12%. Females delegates slightly outnumbered male delegates.
The Republican National Convention had a very different composition of delegates. One-and-a-half percent were African-American, and 5% were Hispanic. Sixty-eight percent of all delegates were male.
I wonder what this will mean in the a few decades, when our projected demographics will see a shift. White Americans will no longer be a majority by 2042, according to government projections. By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of the US populution, and African-Americans will comprise 15%. The only positive change for Republicans I can see--unless the Republicans make efforts to increase their diversity--is that the senior population will nearly double by the year 2050. At least, with this current election, the GOP has that demographic covered!
Today I finished reading Edward
Gilbreath’s Reconciliation Blues: A Black Evangelical’s Inside View of White
Christianity. Like Divided By Faith, I found it really helpful in
terms of better understanding how being white can affect my faith and my
relationships with others.
Gilbreath discusses many black
evangelicals’ struggle with a “double consciousness,” living inside a
predominantly white faith and “see[ing] their faith through a white cultural
lens” (18). Dwight Perry, a leader in the Baptist General Conference and former
Moody professor, shares, “my perception of culture was altered, and my theology
was filtered through a grid that reinforced middle-class white values” (18).
Perry later realized that, while white-dominated evangelicalism helped him spiritually,
it left him disconnected from his own community.
Another black evangelical shared
that many minorities either leave evangelicalism in order to salvage their
racial identity or begin behaving more “white.” The most troubling thing is
that many Caucasians don’t see their culture affecting their faith in such a
strong way. A friend commented to Gilbreath: “The white Christians I encounter
often display a shocking provincialism—a real naiveté about the world around
them. Frankly, it’s as if they are stunned to find out that their cultural,
political, and religious frame of reference is not the only one” (18).
In fact, most white Americans would
not consider themselves members of an ethnicity. I thought I would try that
idea out on my boyfriend, who is from Mexico: “Hey, did you know that
most gueros (white people) don't think they're a race?”
His first response was
just, “Huh?” He couldn't wrap his mind around this concept--and believe me it's
not from any lack of intelligence. “Well, of course you guys are an ethnicity!”
I have several anecdotes about the clashes in our inter-cultural relationship
that would definitely demonstrate my anglo-ness! To many, being white in a
white-dominated, majority culture is just like the air we breathe...while
non-majority culture folks just find it silly that whites consider themselves
non-ethnic.
It’s more serious than
“silly,” especially considering the accounts in Reconciliation Blues of
my fellow Christians’ experiences. This misconception is one of the barriers to
racial reconciliation in our society and in our church. There’s a lot more from
Gilbreath’s book that I would like to share…he has a chapter on white
evangelicals and Martin Luther King, and he discusses the embarrassing,
racially-insensitive Southern Baptist VBS curriculum, Rickshaw Rally. Hopefully
I can get it all in before the book is due back at the library!
...was spent in a pretty neat way. I was with a group of friends (all of which are Mexican-American) at a forest preserve/lake in the western suburbs of Chicago. One of the things I enjoy about living in Chicagoland is its diversity. We joked about the spot where we ended up, calling it the United Nations. Our fellow cooking-out neighbors all consisted of a couple of Indian-American groups, some Caucasian people, and a group of Chinese-Americans. There was soccer, cricket, and volleyball, and music from all over the world. And the FOOD! Thank goodness everyone was up for sharing! Corny as this may sound, I really enjoyed spending America's birthday with immigrants--pretty soon our country will look less and less Caucasian, so my 4th was so cutting edge, right?!
Jenell Paris has been cranking out some excellent posts on gender and the church at her blog: The Paris Project.
Actually, what she has to say encompasses more than gender. She encourages more inclusion of people who aren't necessarily North American, white, male, and with a more or less evangelical theology. Talking about research, she asks, "Are you tacking on a single woman, and maybe Martin Luther King, Jr. for good measure, just to appear inclusive? Or are you really being shaped by people different than yourself?" I think these questions can apply to many other things besides research.
Paris also discusses the dominance of men in Christian circles, whether it be the emergent church, the blogosphere, or Christian conferences:
If your issue is, say, white men’s spirituality in English-speaking America, then by all means stack the deck with those guys. But if your topic is God, or church, or mission, then consider hearing from people with significantly different vantage points on the issue.
Recent Comments