Hi young people especially. It has been a while... I've not been blogging much (and not much that is cheerful) because I've been sad and upset about a friend of a friend's unnecessary death... and also some continuing really bad behavior I've been seeing and experiencing. So I've thought of a kind of spiritual lesson to think about today that is rooted in these past few days, and also one that I think young people need to better understand (since they've not gotten good data on this in the past!)
Bad behavior is sin; they are not two separate matters. This is a confusion that has crept into the modern mind and you young people get the brunt of the confusion regarding understanding God, and avoiding sin, as a result.
Let's look at an obvious easily agreed upon example and analogy. Suppose that someone murders someone else. That can be easily categorized as: bad behavior, a crime, and a sin. So everyone can easily understand that a murder is both doing something really bad to a person, but also a sin against God.
See, many people think that a "sin" is defined as breaking a list of laws or instructions that God has given you. If the thing is "not on the list" then people think it might be bad behavior, or uncouth, but not a sin. That's wrong and not Biblically accurate. No where does the Bible say that sin is the breaking of a list of specific laws given by God, and the rest falls into kind of optional "good" or "bad" behavior that does not "involve God" since it is person-to-person behavior. In fact, the opposite is true that all bad behavior including even thoughts but not follow up deeds ARE sins against God.
If you missed it, you can go back in my haphazardly organized blog ;-) and read my long commentary that cites scripture indicating that Jews and Christians have well understood from the very beginning that even having a mean thought about another person is a sin against God, not just a mean spirited thing against a fellow human being. I probably labeled that under "sins" so you might find it easily that way. So I won't repeat all that, but I cited much scripture regarding the explicit statement that even having a mean thought about another human, even if you don't actually follow up on it, is not only a mean spirited and unrighteous feeling to have, but also an actual sin and offense against God himself. So yes, every mean thought, say nothing of actual follow up bad behavior, is a sin against God, even though common modern thought assumes that it is "just" poor behavior and lack of self control or "spirituality."
So here is where you get into very tricky territory indeed. If you pick on someone, or scorn them, or otherwise torment them, such as stalking and bullying, even if you are not breaking a "Biblical law" or Commandment or committing a human "crime," you are committing a sin directly against God. There are two Biblically cited ways that one can understand why that is.
The first reason is that avoiding sin is not a matter of do's and don'ts, but the maintenance at all time of a righteous mind. Throughout the Bible there are numerous explanations that all humans are sinners, but it is the righteous who are saved. Righteous is not defined as someone who dodges a list of sins. A righteous person is one who strives ALWAYS to do and to think/feel only what is Godly, pure and correct. When one walks in righteousness one does not "do good deeds" but have a mind and a heart like a sewer. Righteousness is a lot like the old fashioned concept of being "honorable." This is why in Revelation 21 you see, depending on the translation, that God through Jesus Christ at the End of Times states that "dogs" or "the fearful" or other translations of kind of craven sorts will not be in heaven. I blogged about that too, recently, that God does not mean that four footed canines are denied heaven but that "dog" is a widespread ancient cultural concept for humans who act dishonorably or who are dishonorable. Someone who thinks something dirty in their mind about a child he or she sees, for example, is a
"dog" and craven, and even if the person does not follow up that thought with actual molestation, they are guilty of that sin.
So to summarize the first way to understand the enormity of the problem to maintain a state of not sinning against God, remember that sin is not simply refusing to heed a stated prohibition in the Bible but is being un-righteous in any way at all, both in the commission of un-righteousness, but also in the thoughts or feelings of it AND, further, deliberately avoiding chances to be righteous. That is why some translations of Revelation 21 include the word "fearful." Those who are fearful to be righteous will not inherit their place in heaven and will, instead, go to the lake of eternal fire.
The second Biblical way to understand how crucial it is to not sin against God by behaving badly toward other human beings is to understand that God stated that he created men and women "in his image." When one torments another human being through bullying, for example, one is mocking and degrading a person who is created, like everyone else, in God's image, just one step below angels. No matter how ugly or unpleasant that you think the person might be, having that thought falls in the category of un-righteousness, and hence a sin, because you are being 1) uncharitable, which Jesus repeatedly said is a requirement of his saving grace and 2) you are mocking something that God has created. A human being may have a bad hair style, but that human being's body and dignity is created by God. There is a huge difference (and that is called "sin") between thinking that a person has a bad haircut that does not suit them, and is even a bit funny (but humorous through kindness) and having degrading thoughts about that person, which is mocking God's creation and a sin. Skin color, as in racism, ought to be another obvious example, one much more serious than the haircut example (though the cruelty of these times regarding a person's appearance is astonishingly destructive and thus serious). Blacks who hate whites and whites who hate blacks are committing individual sins with each and every thought and deed generated by that un-righteousness, since God is neither black nor white, but all are created in his image.
God will not be mocked, as St Paul warns in the scripture. One mocks God not only directly, by making fun of God or attempting to degrade Him, but one also mocks God by tormenting and mocking one of His creations: a fellow human being. Beware of this because hell is getting packed, yet there is always plenty of room.
Showing posts with label race discussions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race discussions. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Another thought on the race meditation
When I was growing up in the radical 1960's, there was one aspect of the most radical of the black power views that disturbed and saddened me. This was their lack of respect for the armed forces of America based on their feeling disenfranchised, which they were indeed, due to racism.
So their feeling of alienation from the American armed forces was quite understandable and not what bothered me (though I felt it to be counterproductive at the time, though that too was some of the Vietnam era zeitgeist).
What bothered me is that there is no heritage among Afro-Americans of honoring the Union war dead.
Here are the casualties of Union soldiers who fought to eliminate slavery:
364,511 Dead
281,881 Wounded
646,392 Total
I was always saddened that Afro-Americans did not, to my knowledge, develop a custom of honoring the Union dead, even if they were doing so to make a pointed commentary toward contemporary Armed forces who were discriminatory.
Honestly, if over three hundred thousand people died freeing my ancestors from slavery, I think I'd visit a few graves and lay a few wreaths, if for no other reason than to teach my children the sacrifice that was made for them by people over a hundred years ago AND as a counterpoint to modern day racism and indifference.
If, for example, someone provoked me with displaying the Confederate flag (as a provocative and not a cultural act) I'd go and lay more wreaths and flowers on the Union graves, forgotten and overgrown, in response. I think that, by the way, resonates with Afro-Americans whose own cemeteries have a sad history of neglect and disrespect by white communities. Likewise I often feel that Afro-Americans have forgotten the Union dead.
It's a subject that is near to my heart because, as I said, not only do I find slavery to be abhorrent, but also my father's family had a Civil War veteran reside with them in their family country hotel in the latter years of his life, so it is not a matter of abstract history to me. I like to think that my grandmother cooked him some great meals and that his beer was free.
When there were over six hundred thousand casualties (wounds were no light matter then, as they are not today in Iraq, for example), it is not giving one's children a full and accurate picture to make it like no one cared about slaves "back then." Over six hundred thousand (again, compare that to our Iraq conflict) showed how much they cared by dying or being dreadfully wounded. I'd like to see their memory and sacrifice recalled by more people today, if you know what I mean.
So their feeling of alienation from the American armed forces was quite understandable and not what bothered me (though I felt it to be counterproductive at the time, though that too was some of the Vietnam era zeitgeist).
What bothered me is that there is no heritage among Afro-Americans of honoring the Union war dead.
Here are the casualties of Union soldiers who fought to eliminate slavery:
364,511 Dead
281,881 Wounded
646,392 Total
I was always saddened that Afro-Americans did not, to my knowledge, develop a custom of honoring the Union dead, even if they were doing so to make a pointed commentary toward contemporary Armed forces who were discriminatory.
Honestly, if over three hundred thousand people died freeing my ancestors from slavery, I think I'd visit a few graves and lay a few wreaths, if for no other reason than to teach my children the sacrifice that was made for them by people over a hundred years ago AND as a counterpoint to modern day racism and indifference.
If, for example, someone provoked me with displaying the Confederate flag (as a provocative and not a cultural act) I'd go and lay more wreaths and flowers on the Union graves, forgotten and overgrown, in response. I think that, by the way, resonates with Afro-Americans whose own cemeteries have a sad history of neglect and disrespect by white communities. Likewise I often feel that Afro-Americans have forgotten the Union dead.
It's a subject that is near to my heart because, as I said, not only do I find slavery to be abhorrent, but also my father's family had a Civil War veteran reside with them in their family country hotel in the latter years of his life, so it is not a matter of abstract history to me. I like to think that my grandmother cooked him some great meals and that his beer was free.
When there were over six hundred thousand casualties (wounds were no light matter then, as they are not today in Iraq, for example), it is not giving one's children a full and accurate picture to make it like no one cared about slaves "back then." Over six hundred thousand (again, compare that to our Iraq conflict) showed how much they cared by dying or being dreadfully wounded. I'd like to see their memory and sacrifice recalled by more people today, if you know what I mean.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A photographic meditation on race
I went to a bookstore this evening just to get out of the apartment and do some browsing. I noticed a book about Abraham Lincoln and picked it up to flip through it. I don't want to mention the book nor did I buy it, not because it's not a great book, but because I don't want to distract from the core of what I am going to describe to you.
I flipped to the pictures section and was totally moved and stopped in my tracks by a black and white pair of photographs from the Civil War. One is well known and I had seen before, and the other I did not know had left a photographic record.
On the left side was a photograph of the carnage of the Battle of Gettysburg, showing the bodies of Union soldiers two days after the battle, lying densely through a field. That is the picture that I had seen before, among others, recording the terrible sights of the battle dead. The caption explained that eventually people could be found to bury the dead in the battlefield where their bodies lay.
On the right side was a photograph of the bodies being dug up again so they could be moved and interred into the national cemeteries that Lincoln designated. Who was doing the work of digging up the Union soldiers who had died battling slavery? Freed slaves.
I could not easily stop gazing with wonder on that picture. Would you not have liked to have been able to ask the freed slaves how they felt, unearthing the Union soldiers who had died to free them, putting their bodies on the carts, and moving them to honorable cemeteries?
Much has been made of how the White House and the Capitol were built with slave labor, and that is important to realize and to never forget.
But I have also blogged that one must never forget the dignity of the slaves themselves and how they lived and dealt with those times. They were not unaware children who were being exploited and fought over; they were adults with educations and awareness of the nuance of what was occurring. And so less than one hundred years after slave labor built Washington, newly freed slaves dug up the mortal remains of the Union soldiers who had died to free them, and respectfully moved them, as best as could be done in those times, to the cemeteries of honor that Lincoln had designated.
I mention this so that in particular Afro-Americans have an understanding that the contemporaries of their time, the slaves who witnessed the Civil War, worked to honor in their time those who had paid the ultimate price, the fallen Union soldiers. I think that this is something to be very proud of, and so I thought to mention it as a meditation tonight on race relationships. Many today think, understandably, that there is a notion of reparations and atonement for slavery and I'm not here to argue that one way or the other. However, one must have an understanding that slaves knew that Union soldiers were fighting for them, and freed slaves honored the fallen Union soldiers by doing what is admittedly one of the most difficult of charities, which is to unearth their decomposing bodies and transport them to respectful national cemeteries. That is a profound dignity that I think most people do not realize took place at that very time, and I'm so glad that I saw the photograph tonight to share it with you and my thoughts.
It also is an example of what I was speaking about before, which is how does one capture a past historic experience in the view of the contemporaries, those actual participants alive at the time? What a value a single photograph can provide in that regard!
I flipped to the pictures section and was totally moved and stopped in my tracks by a black and white pair of photographs from the Civil War. One is well known and I had seen before, and the other I did not know had left a photographic record.
On the left side was a photograph of the carnage of the Battle of Gettysburg, showing the bodies of Union soldiers two days after the battle, lying densely through a field. That is the picture that I had seen before, among others, recording the terrible sights of the battle dead. The caption explained that eventually people could be found to bury the dead in the battlefield where their bodies lay.
On the right side was a photograph of the bodies being dug up again so they could be moved and interred into the national cemeteries that Lincoln designated. Who was doing the work of digging up the Union soldiers who had died battling slavery? Freed slaves.
I could not easily stop gazing with wonder on that picture. Would you not have liked to have been able to ask the freed slaves how they felt, unearthing the Union soldiers who had died to free them, putting their bodies on the carts, and moving them to honorable cemeteries?
Much has been made of how the White House and the Capitol were built with slave labor, and that is important to realize and to never forget.
But I have also blogged that one must never forget the dignity of the slaves themselves and how they lived and dealt with those times. They were not unaware children who were being exploited and fought over; they were adults with educations and awareness of the nuance of what was occurring. And so less than one hundred years after slave labor built Washington, newly freed slaves dug up the mortal remains of the Union soldiers who had died to free them, and respectfully moved them, as best as could be done in those times, to the cemeteries of honor that Lincoln had designated.
I mention this so that in particular Afro-Americans have an understanding that the contemporaries of their time, the slaves who witnessed the Civil War, worked to honor in their time those who had paid the ultimate price, the fallen Union soldiers. I think that this is something to be very proud of, and so I thought to mention it as a meditation tonight on race relationships. Many today think, understandably, that there is a notion of reparations and atonement for slavery and I'm not here to argue that one way or the other. However, one must have an understanding that slaves knew that Union soldiers were fighting for them, and freed slaves honored the fallen Union soldiers by doing what is admittedly one of the most difficult of charities, which is to unearth their decomposing bodies and transport them to respectful national cemeteries. That is a profound dignity that I think most people do not realize took place at that very time, and I'm so glad that I saw the photograph tonight to share it with you and my thoughts.
It also is an example of what I was speaking about before, which is how does one capture a past historic experience in the view of the contemporaries, those actual participants alive at the time? What a value a single photograph can provide in that regard!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
More Christmas idea follow-up
It's hard to believe that Christmas is just over a week away, so I'm pushing forward with getting my charitable giving "presents" wrapped under the tree, and also making the donations that they represent.
I've just donated $50 to the United Negro College Fund. This was one of the first charities that I donated to, back in the 1980's when I was earning a good paycheck. It is one of the greatest causes that you can find, and donations made now can help these students already with their second semesters. Historically black colleges are one of our national treasures, in my opinion, as they deliver high quality education in personal "small town settings" (even when in a city) that many have come to realize is a positive and proactive educational environment. So I now have under the tree the reminder of my intention to make an annual Christmas donation, a maroon color holly decorated wrapped present decorated with an angel of color holding a dove, and will record this donation on the Santa Claus tag.
Read this description from their web site:
There are 105 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) across the nation. In 1965, in Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Congress officially defined an HBCU as, an institution whose principal missions were, and are the education of black Americans, was accredited, and was established before 1964. The first HBCU, Cheney University in Pennsylvania was founded in 1837. All HBCUs play a critical role in the American higher education system. For most of America’s history, African Americans who received a college education could only get it from an HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education.
While the 105 HBCUs represent just 3 percent of the nation’s institutions of higher learning, they graduate nearly one-quarter of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. HBCUs, because of their unique sensibility to the special needs of young African American minds, remain the institutions that demonstrate the most effective ability to graduate African American students who are poised to be competitive in the corporate, research, academic, governmental and military arenas.
UNCF supports minority students at many schools that are not HBCUs. However, UNCF directly supports 39 private HBCUs.
http://www.uncf.org/
I've just donated $50 to the United Negro College Fund. This was one of the first charities that I donated to, back in the 1980's when I was earning a good paycheck. It is one of the greatest causes that you can find, and donations made now can help these students already with their second semesters. Historically black colleges are one of our national treasures, in my opinion, as they deliver high quality education in personal "small town settings" (even when in a city) that many have come to realize is a positive and proactive educational environment. So I now have under the tree the reminder of my intention to make an annual Christmas donation, a maroon color holly decorated wrapped present decorated with an angel of color holding a dove, and will record this donation on the Santa Claus tag.
Read this description from their web site:
There are 105 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) across the nation. In 1965, in Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Congress officially defined an HBCU as, an institution whose principal missions were, and are the education of black Americans, was accredited, and was established before 1964. The first HBCU, Cheney University in Pennsylvania was founded in 1837. All HBCUs play a critical role in the American higher education system. For most of America’s history, African Americans who received a college education could only get it from an HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education.
While the 105 HBCUs represent just 3 percent of the nation’s institutions of higher learning, they graduate nearly one-quarter of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. HBCUs, because of their unique sensibility to the special needs of young African American minds, remain the institutions that demonstrate the most effective ability to graduate African American students who are poised to be competitive in the corporate, research, academic, governmental and military arenas.
UNCF supports minority students at many schools that are not HBCUs. However, UNCF directly supports 39 private HBCUs.
http://www.uncf.org/
Friday, November 14, 2008
Kindly read every word of this article
I would especially like people who consider themselves experts in the following areas: race relationships and civil rights, colonialism, the "failings" of organized religion, the "glories" of multi-cultural and paganistic "new age" beliefs. Humans have a brokenness that cannot be blamed on churches, society or a particular race. Here is what happens when witchcraft runs amok and infects several countries.
I would also like those of you who favor a slippery slope in the purchasing of body parts for transplants to read this article carefully and think about it. Do you really want to "live longer" if your life was bought by someone who used a machete to kill a baby and use his body parts? The membrane between the two scenarios is actually quite thin.
I would also like you morons who love "vampire fiction" and worse, let your children read it, think about this. Again, you are not much removed from running around with that machete in your hands. And that includes nut jobs like a certain actress who used to wear a "blood vial" around her neck along with her husband. You are encouraging that very mindset of commodity and supernatural body parts, rather than raising the kids to be sane and have faith in a mainstream genuine faith. Read every word of this article and try to imagine what it is like to have three countries worth of psychotics wanting to cut your babies (and you) into body parts for magic. Try not to be a literature or celebrity "poster child" for this "mindset."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7730193.stm
Mothers hacked in albino attacks
Two mothers in western Tanzania have been attacked by gangs who were after their children who have albinism.
The women were hacked with machetes when the attackers failed to find the two children.
Albinos have been targeted in a series of killings around the country due to a belief their body parts can make magic potions more effective.
At least 30 people with albinism have been killed since March, including a seven-month old baby.
On Wednesday, attackers forced a woman to take them to her home, looking for her nine-year-old daughter in Kibondo District, close to the Burundi border.
The girl was not in the house and so the men attacked the mother.
In the second attack, a gang of four men broke into a house at the Lugufu camp in Kigoma, which hosts refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, looking for a child with albinism.
The child, aged two, escaped kidnap after falling under the bed unnoticed.
The women are undergoing treatment for their injuries.
High prevalence
On Thursday, police in south-western Tanzania arrested a man who was attempting to sell his albino wife to Congolese traders.
The BBC's Vicky Ntetema in Dar es Salaam says the attacks appear to have spread from north-western Tanzania, where they were first reported.
The attacks also suggest that there is interest in albino body parts from the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, our correspondent says.
The Kigoma regional police commander said the attackers had fled and a manhunt was underway.
The attacks on albinos have been linked to witchdoctors who are peddling the belief that potions made from an albino's legs, hair, hands, and blood can make a person rich.
President Jakaya Kikwete ordered a police crackdown on those involved in the killings in March, and 170 witchdoctors have since been arrested.
But BBC investigations suggest that some police are being "bought off" in order to look away when such crimes are committed.
The prevalence of albinism in Tanzania appears to be high and the Albino Association of Tanzania says the actual number of albinos could be as high as 173,000.
A census is now underway to verify the figures.
I would also like those of you who favor a slippery slope in the purchasing of body parts for transplants to read this article carefully and think about it. Do you really want to "live longer" if your life was bought by someone who used a machete to kill a baby and use his body parts? The membrane between the two scenarios is actually quite thin.
I would also like you morons who love "vampire fiction" and worse, let your children read it, think about this. Again, you are not much removed from running around with that machete in your hands. And that includes nut jobs like a certain actress who used to wear a "blood vial" around her neck along with her husband. You are encouraging that very mindset of commodity and supernatural body parts, rather than raising the kids to be sane and have faith in a mainstream genuine faith. Read every word of this article and try to imagine what it is like to have three countries worth of psychotics wanting to cut your babies (and you) into body parts for magic. Try not to be a literature or celebrity "poster child" for this "mindset."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7730193.stm
Mothers hacked in albino attacks
Two mothers in western Tanzania have been attacked by gangs who were after their children who have albinism.
The women were hacked with machetes when the attackers failed to find the two children.
Albinos have been targeted in a series of killings around the country due to a belief their body parts can make magic potions more effective.
At least 30 people with albinism have been killed since March, including a seven-month old baby.
On Wednesday, attackers forced a woman to take them to her home, looking for her nine-year-old daughter in Kibondo District, close to the Burundi border.
The girl was not in the house and so the men attacked the mother.
In the second attack, a gang of four men broke into a house at the Lugufu camp in Kigoma, which hosts refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, looking for a child with albinism.
The child, aged two, escaped kidnap after falling under the bed unnoticed.
The women are undergoing treatment for their injuries.
High prevalence
On Thursday, police in south-western Tanzania arrested a man who was attempting to sell his albino wife to Congolese traders.
The BBC's Vicky Ntetema in Dar es Salaam says the attacks appear to have spread from north-western Tanzania, where they were first reported.
The attacks also suggest that there is interest in albino body parts from the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, our correspondent says.
The Kigoma regional police commander said the attackers had fled and a manhunt was underway.
The attacks on albinos have been linked to witchdoctors who are peddling the belief that potions made from an albino's legs, hair, hands, and blood can make a person rich.
President Jakaya Kikwete ordered a police crackdown on those involved in the killings in March, and 170 witchdoctors have since been arrested.
But BBC investigations suggest that some police are being "bought off" in order to look away when such crimes are committed.
The prevalence of albinism in Tanzania appears to be high and the Albino Association of Tanzania says the actual number of albinos could be as high as 173,000.
A census is now underway to verify the figures.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Case study and reflections on subversive humor
I’ve written before about “subversive humor.” Here is another example of the positive power of subversive humor. It is a mild example, but because millions can hear it used every week, I thought I’d point it out.
I like to listen to conservative talk radio and so in the past few years I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh. By the way, this is back to my “roots,” since I listened in the 1970’s to Paul Harvey. People need to “monitor” my “behavior” and “tastes” by the decades to actually understand me, if you know what I mean.
On Fridays Rush has “Open Line Friday.” This is where he takes more phone calls from listeners than he does on other days. Actually, the point is that he takes calls from people who wish to discuss topics that are not necessarily what Rush is focusing on that day. For those of you who don’t listen to talk radio, the radio hosts tend to put forth a number of topics in each show, and invite callers about those topics, in order to maintain the discussion. People will hold on the phone for hours, and only a few actually get through on the air, because of the number of calls. So on Friday Rush has his “Open Line Friday” where he expresses willingness to take more calls plus they can be on topics that are not those that Rush is featuring.
This is where Rush is both droll and subversive in his humor. The tag line for Rush’s Open Line Friday is something like, “Friday is when we take your calls, even if we don’t care about the topic, but I will fake it.” It is funny and droll (I’ve discussed the merits of droll humor before on this blog) because he says it in a very expansive and over the top way, as if bestowing his graciousness, which is part of his shtick. (Shtick is a Yiddish word that describes a person’s entertainment routine, either deliberate or inadvertent, but usually deliberate; it is a nuanced form of the expression “do your thing,” where your thing is how you present yourself in an entertaining way). So it is always funny to listen to him when he introduces Open Line Friday, unless you suffer from excessive earnestness and do not understand subversive humor.
Rush is being subversively humorous for a few reasons. One is that there is a form of irony (I’ve discussed irony before) because in truth, obviously still few people get through and on air, and he still, obviously, has topics that motivate the callers. So by necessity of structure and through the use of subversive humor, Open Line Friday hardly results in hundreds of callers waxing eloquent on the merits of collecting postage stamps with butterflies upon them, or the best way to cook lima beans. Rush doesn’t have to “fake it” much because obviously listeners phone in with the topics they are listening to from Rush and that they, in return, want to contribute to. So there is both ironic humor (defined as “sounds good, but doesn’t quite turn out as advertised”) and subversive humor, which is to say something that sounds wrong and unsympathetic to the shallow listener, but is actually in a contrarian way, supportive of even the “aggrieved” person who misunderstands.
So someone who is biased not to like conservative radio and who listens to the Open Line Friday shtick is likely to quiver with outrage, thinking “What a blowhard faker! Rush is saying that he will ‘graciously’ fake listening to every caller’s topic, but he ends up taking calls on the same subjects he is speaking of, and not so many calls anyway!” But that is an example of someone not understanding either ironic humor or the underlying subversive humor.
The subversive humor “joke” is that the entire show, through its gravity, attracts a population that IS calling to discuss the topics that they wish to, all the time, every day, all week. So the “wink” of the subversive humor is that while Rush’s shtick is to “deign” to accept what he describes as calls he may have to fake to listen to, the entire show and success of his enterprise would not exist if he was not already doing that, and doing that without faking. Subversive humor sounds politically incorrect to those who don’t “get it,” and they miss that the very thing that the speaker is kind of mocking is what they are doing all along. Every successful talk radio show, yes, especially the conservative ones, open the trail for all others, because they demonstrate through their success the market share of people who want to listen to those types of topics and participate (even if not all listeners agree with every single thing). So when Rush says he is deigning to grant one show as being “for the callers to talk about whatever they want,” even if he has to “fake it,” he is also being subversively funny, in its positive form, since in the free market, his entire show would not exist unless people were listening to what they want to hear, and calling in to say what they want to say, every day, every show.
So detractors of Rush, let’s say a humorous liberal, would listen to his Open Line Friday shtick and possibly quiver with their self perceived “righteous anger” at his “elitist.” LOL! But look at the success, or rather “not success” of liberal talk show radio shows. The market shows that, in general, no one wants to listen. It’s not like the conservative talk show hosts are kidnapping listeners, or blocking access to liberals’ own shows. In fact, the conservative shows demonstrate a model of how it would work, if anyone actually wanted to listen to it.
Further and more essential to understanding subversive humor, one must understand that the humorist seems to mock the very persons they most value. Rush would not have a talk show if he did not value his listeners. Having a talk show is much more work and preparation than people think, and much energy and sweat goes into it. Rush could not fake it, even for that money, year after year, if he did not genuinely enjoy the audience. I speak from experience because preaching is something that is also based on a foundation of genuine liking, if not effusive love, for one’s entire audience. It really is impossible to generate the energy and sincerity if one does not like one’s audience. It is different from manufacturing, for example, where one can manufacture goods for faceless consumers that one may or may not like… but if you think about it, even that tends to fail if one does not at least understand and respect one’s customer base. So subversive humor often takes the form of sounding like one is being politically incorrect, or even insulting, to one’s own base, and it is only understood as a kind of “inside the family lingo.” Let me give you a variety of examples, some firmly subversive humor and some marginally subversive humor.
I had an older cousin, who was an adult when I was a baby. I hated to be grabbed and kissed by him when I was a toddler, even though I loved him, since I was a very shy and self contained child, so I would hide under the kitchen table when he first arrived to visit, so he could not reach me. He therefore got the nickname of “Kissing Cousin.” LOL. Now, someone all earnest and anal would think that by calling him “Kissing Cousin” we were “glorifying” “child abuse.” But that is classic subversive humor, where you call someone a nickname that seems to glorify something that is wrong, but is actually a family lingo type of thing that expresses not only affection but acknowledgement of an “awkward reality.”
That is why subversive humor is such a powerful political force. Subversive humor is not “taking the wrong side” but bringing into the air, in a shorthand and sound byte form, an awkward reality that is not endorsed by the speaker. Here is an example that blew up in people’s faces. Some Afro-Americans sought to destroy the sting of the “N-word” by using it among themselves as that kind of family lingo. But that never really worked because it was not directed into the general sphere of discourse. In situations like the N-word, one must both stop using it and denounce it completely (what I would recommend) or one must be subversive and use it loud and proud in private or public discourse, in order to rehabilitate it and remove the sting. The singer Patti Smith actually tried to do that with a song that linked the N-word to everyone she considered revolutionary, including Jesus and her grandma. It’s an interesting song from an album of hers that I like, and once in a while the tune runs through my mind. If everyone sought to use that model, then everyone should have been calling everyone else “N-word” in everyday conversation in every topic, until those who did use it for the shaming reason (the genuine bigots) would have been flooded with hearing “N-word” in everything from fashion shows to auto sales rooms, LOL. Then it would have died away as an incredibly overused word of slang. THAT is how subversive humor is defined, and its proper use.
I was married to a secular Jewish man, who belonged to a secular Jewish family, one extremely liberal in their politics. But despite being very liberal, they used two certain Yiddish terms to describe Afro-Americans that were not complimentary. So what did my ex-husband and I do? We used those two terms with glee, among each other and in conversation with his family. It works, let me tell you. It is very enlightening and shaming when one floods the airwaves with a term that is like those I am describing, reflecting it right back to those who use those terms. They stopped using those terms (at least in our presence) much faster than earnest politically correct lecturing would ever have accomplished. We continued to use those terms among ourselves because when one is a culture warrior, one continues to self reference where one comes from and what one has achieved. Those terms, like “Kissing Cousin,” remained affectionate and past success laden family lingo, not denigrating. We used the terms with glee when a wonderful Afro-American family moved across the street from us and our elderly neighbor worried if they would be “clean enough.” Yep, it’s rare that subversive terms ever get a rest and a chance to be shelved, in even these times.
Now, imagine my surprise, hurt and dismay when I found that my private conversations with my ex- were wiretapped and monitored, and the use of subversive humor as a positive for change was willfully misinterpreted and shared with others as “evidence” of our supposed “prejudice” and “past life karma.” When I discovered that this had happened, I left the Civil Rights active roster, because I became pulverized and humiliated, for reasons never given to my face, by the very people I have stood beside throughout it all. What they did to me is just as bad as if they took sound clips of “Kissing Cousin,” and used it to promote infant sex.
So even though it is too late, still I try to educate and correct people in their misperceptions. While the affection is gone, I do not give up in my efforts to get people to see the truth, and abolish the lies of genuine hate and prejudice. That’s why I have had this blogging on my mind for a while, and why I even bother. I hope that you have found this helpful, especially those of you, young people, who are not to blame for this situation.
I like to listen to conservative talk radio and so in the past few years I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh. By the way, this is back to my “roots,” since I listened in the 1970’s to Paul Harvey. People need to “monitor” my “behavior” and “tastes” by the decades to actually understand me, if you know what I mean.
On Fridays Rush has “Open Line Friday.” This is where he takes more phone calls from listeners than he does on other days. Actually, the point is that he takes calls from people who wish to discuss topics that are not necessarily what Rush is focusing on that day. For those of you who don’t listen to talk radio, the radio hosts tend to put forth a number of topics in each show, and invite callers about those topics, in order to maintain the discussion. People will hold on the phone for hours, and only a few actually get through on the air, because of the number of calls. So on Friday Rush has his “Open Line Friday” where he expresses willingness to take more calls plus they can be on topics that are not those that Rush is featuring.
This is where Rush is both droll and subversive in his humor. The tag line for Rush’s Open Line Friday is something like, “Friday is when we take your calls, even if we don’t care about the topic, but I will fake it.” It is funny and droll (I’ve discussed the merits of droll humor before on this blog) because he says it in a very expansive and over the top way, as if bestowing his graciousness, which is part of his shtick. (Shtick is a Yiddish word that describes a person’s entertainment routine, either deliberate or inadvertent, but usually deliberate; it is a nuanced form of the expression “do your thing,” where your thing is how you present yourself in an entertaining way). So it is always funny to listen to him when he introduces Open Line Friday, unless you suffer from excessive earnestness and do not understand subversive humor.
Rush is being subversively humorous for a few reasons. One is that there is a form of irony (I’ve discussed irony before) because in truth, obviously still few people get through and on air, and he still, obviously, has topics that motivate the callers. So by necessity of structure and through the use of subversive humor, Open Line Friday hardly results in hundreds of callers waxing eloquent on the merits of collecting postage stamps with butterflies upon them, or the best way to cook lima beans. Rush doesn’t have to “fake it” much because obviously listeners phone in with the topics they are listening to from Rush and that they, in return, want to contribute to. So there is both ironic humor (defined as “sounds good, but doesn’t quite turn out as advertised”) and subversive humor, which is to say something that sounds wrong and unsympathetic to the shallow listener, but is actually in a contrarian way, supportive of even the “aggrieved” person who misunderstands.
So someone who is biased not to like conservative radio and who listens to the Open Line Friday shtick is likely to quiver with outrage, thinking “What a blowhard faker! Rush is saying that he will ‘graciously’ fake listening to every caller’s topic, but he ends up taking calls on the same subjects he is speaking of, and not so many calls anyway!” But that is an example of someone not understanding either ironic humor or the underlying subversive humor.
The subversive humor “joke” is that the entire show, through its gravity, attracts a population that IS calling to discuss the topics that they wish to, all the time, every day, all week. So the “wink” of the subversive humor is that while Rush’s shtick is to “deign” to accept what he describes as calls he may have to fake to listen to, the entire show and success of his enterprise would not exist if he was not already doing that, and doing that without faking. Subversive humor sounds politically incorrect to those who don’t “get it,” and they miss that the very thing that the speaker is kind of mocking is what they are doing all along. Every successful talk radio show, yes, especially the conservative ones, open the trail for all others, because they demonstrate through their success the market share of people who want to listen to those types of topics and participate (even if not all listeners agree with every single thing). So when Rush says he is deigning to grant one show as being “for the callers to talk about whatever they want,” even if he has to “fake it,” he is also being subversively funny, in its positive form, since in the free market, his entire show would not exist unless people were listening to what they want to hear, and calling in to say what they want to say, every day, every show.
So detractors of Rush, let’s say a humorous liberal, would listen to his Open Line Friday shtick and possibly quiver with their self perceived “righteous anger” at his “elitist.” LOL! But look at the success, or rather “not success” of liberal talk show radio shows. The market shows that, in general, no one wants to listen. It’s not like the conservative talk show hosts are kidnapping listeners, or blocking access to liberals’ own shows. In fact, the conservative shows demonstrate a model of how it would work, if anyone actually wanted to listen to it.
Further and more essential to understanding subversive humor, one must understand that the humorist seems to mock the very persons they most value. Rush would not have a talk show if he did not value his listeners. Having a talk show is much more work and preparation than people think, and much energy and sweat goes into it. Rush could not fake it, even for that money, year after year, if he did not genuinely enjoy the audience. I speak from experience because preaching is something that is also based on a foundation of genuine liking, if not effusive love, for one’s entire audience. It really is impossible to generate the energy and sincerity if one does not like one’s audience. It is different from manufacturing, for example, where one can manufacture goods for faceless consumers that one may or may not like… but if you think about it, even that tends to fail if one does not at least understand and respect one’s customer base. So subversive humor often takes the form of sounding like one is being politically incorrect, or even insulting, to one’s own base, and it is only understood as a kind of “inside the family lingo.” Let me give you a variety of examples, some firmly subversive humor and some marginally subversive humor.
I had an older cousin, who was an adult when I was a baby. I hated to be grabbed and kissed by him when I was a toddler, even though I loved him, since I was a very shy and self contained child, so I would hide under the kitchen table when he first arrived to visit, so he could not reach me. He therefore got the nickname of “Kissing Cousin.” LOL. Now, someone all earnest and anal would think that by calling him “Kissing Cousin” we were “glorifying” “child abuse.” But that is classic subversive humor, where you call someone a nickname that seems to glorify something that is wrong, but is actually a family lingo type of thing that expresses not only affection but acknowledgement of an “awkward reality.”
That is why subversive humor is such a powerful political force. Subversive humor is not “taking the wrong side” but bringing into the air, in a shorthand and sound byte form, an awkward reality that is not endorsed by the speaker. Here is an example that blew up in people’s faces. Some Afro-Americans sought to destroy the sting of the “N-word” by using it among themselves as that kind of family lingo. But that never really worked because it was not directed into the general sphere of discourse. In situations like the N-word, one must both stop using it and denounce it completely (what I would recommend) or one must be subversive and use it loud and proud in private or public discourse, in order to rehabilitate it and remove the sting. The singer Patti Smith actually tried to do that with a song that linked the N-word to everyone she considered revolutionary, including Jesus and her grandma. It’s an interesting song from an album of hers that I like, and once in a while the tune runs through my mind. If everyone sought to use that model, then everyone should have been calling everyone else “N-word” in everyday conversation in every topic, until those who did use it for the shaming reason (the genuine bigots) would have been flooded with hearing “N-word” in everything from fashion shows to auto sales rooms, LOL. Then it would have died away as an incredibly overused word of slang. THAT is how subversive humor is defined, and its proper use.
I was married to a secular Jewish man, who belonged to a secular Jewish family, one extremely liberal in their politics. But despite being very liberal, they used two certain Yiddish terms to describe Afro-Americans that were not complimentary. So what did my ex-husband and I do? We used those two terms with glee, among each other and in conversation with his family. It works, let me tell you. It is very enlightening and shaming when one floods the airwaves with a term that is like those I am describing, reflecting it right back to those who use those terms. They stopped using those terms (at least in our presence) much faster than earnest politically correct lecturing would ever have accomplished. We continued to use those terms among ourselves because when one is a culture warrior, one continues to self reference where one comes from and what one has achieved. Those terms, like “Kissing Cousin,” remained affectionate and past success laden family lingo, not denigrating. We used the terms with glee when a wonderful Afro-American family moved across the street from us and our elderly neighbor worried if they would be “clean enough.” Yep, it’s rare that subversive terms ever get a rest and a chance to be shelved, in even these times.
Now, imagine my surprise, hurt and dismay when I found that my private conversations with my ex- were wiretapped and monitored, and the use of subversive humor as a positive for change was willfully misinterpreted and shared with others as “evidence” of our supposed “prejudice” and “past life karma.” When I discovered that this had happened, I left the Civil Rights active roster, because I became pulverized and humiliated, for reasons never given to my face, by the very people I have stood beside throughout it all. What they did to me is just as bad as if they took sound clips of “Kissing Cousin,” and used it to promote infant sex.
So even though it is too late, still I try to educate and correct people in their misperceptions. While the affection is gone, I do not give up in my efforts to get people to see the truth, and abolish the lies of genuine hate and prejudice. That’s why I have had this blogging on my mind for a while, and why I even bother. I hope that you have found this helpful, especially those of you, young people, who are not to blame for this situation.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Directions to study about Afro-American faith
I'm not going to write an essay here; I just want to point you in some directions to contemplate and research if this is an area of interest to you. This is another case study for my "faith and reason" and "discernment" series on how to improve clarity of thought and the taking of personal policy positions, especially for young readers who did not live through the times and do not have a lot of the context and information.
1) Slaves brought to the USA came from different tribes with different cultures, languages and faiths. Therefore you must realize that there was not one pan-Africa uniform native faith from which slaves were uprooted. There were many and remember that ancestral faiths tend to be tied very much to the actual homeland, and thus is near impossible to hold onto. For example, think of the many tribal faiths around the world, including for example the Navajo Native Americans here in the USA, who link their faith to landforms such as sacred mountains. So a transplanted slave from Africa had little chance to continue their faith when removed from tribe, kin and the land. Another example is that even today it is hard for public health officials to spray ponds near African villages with insecticides because even if dangerous diseases are rampant in a pond, the pond itself may be viewed as sacred and essential to the traditional faith. So how would a captive from a tribe and a village with a sacred pond maintain their "faith" when transplanted across the ocean to America, or anywhere else? Faith was extremely local, often on the village or tribal level; it was not a uniform experience throughout black Africa.
2) Slaves were very spiritual and strong in belief, so they adopted in many cases willingly the faith of the slave owners and the community. This meant Protestant faiths. Catholics were a non existent culture so far as being slave owners, and had only one major outpost which was New Orleans (where there was French settlers). So this is why the vast majority of today's Afro-Americans have Christian faith that is post Reformation based and not Catholic. (You can see the reverse among Native Americans who were under Spanish influence, who had Catholicism imposed upon them in their native lands. Some were evangelized and willingly converted, but remember, they were still in their ancestral homes among their tribes, kin and land and thus were not loosened from their faith base as Afro-American slaves were when taken out of Africa homelands).
3) Afro-Americans are by nature and tradition very spiritual and faith based, and so they evolved the black church tradition that is a monument of faith. What I am saying is that they did not accept "the bare minimum" of faith necessary to survive, but took Christianity to their own and embellished and amplified it in a remarkable way that is a testimony to God's presence in their life. It is not just a matter of the outward signs, such as gospel choirs and enthusiasm for revivals, but these embellishments to the faith, plus the planting of many small local churches were signs of their deep inner faith.
4) Today in Africa itself there is a huge voluntary conversion toward Christianity, both the Protestant form and the Catholic faith.
5) During the Civil Rights movement the Christian faith held by Afro-Americans was instrumental in their determination, non violence, and cohesion of family even in the face of poverty and resistance.
6) During the "black liberation" movement that is an offspring of the Civil Rights movement, it became a legitimate question but veered into revolutionary faddism, to question whether "descendants of slaves should hold the religion of their 'slave masters.'" This is why a strong movement toward Islam (though a "black" version of it in many cases) emerged. The good part of it is the determination to believe in one God, the God of Abraham. The bad part of it is the notion of tinkering with creating yet another model for denominations and faith systems based on politics, social reactionaries, and assuming that what has been forced on someone must by definition be wrong in its core.
Those who did not go with the Muslim option often did one of two alternatives. They developed radicalized "black churches" that use Jesus Christ to promote their social agenda and veer away from devout worship of God as is or they were tempted to try to create an imaginary "recapturing" of the "faith they left behind in Africa." So you get things like Kwanzaa but if you really examine them you could never match them to the beliefs of the actual slaves who were first brought to the USA (remember I pointed out that faith system was tribe, kin and location based). So you get an amalgamation that is political and not actually pure to the genuine African faith history. That's fine if that's what you want but don't market it as being what ancestral slaves would have actually worshipped!
7) As Afro-Americans became if not middle class and wealthy but at least with incomes from jobs or from social services, they started being viewed by the economic upper classes less as a labor force and more as "consumers." As a result the Christian faith of Afro-Americans has been both intentionally and inadvertently targeted for weakening by those who have product to sell that is contrary to the faith of traditional older Afro-Americans. That is an entirely unique situation and I'll let you think that through. Do because it's very important. (Hint: you don't see products being marketing just to Catholics or to Native Americans that are contrary to their faith, though they are examples of groups that get caught up in the general consumerism. No, Afro-Americans have faith busting products marketed specifically to them for purely consumerism reasons... like rap, prison chic and sexualizing "ho" products). Another hint: Planned Parenthood marketing abortions to black neighborhoods, a long time scandal that I do not understand why people are not informed and totally repulsed.
8) New age has crept into the faith weakening game in a number of ways. The most classic example is the "lost tribe" angle. This is always a temptation for any group around the world, to legitimize themselves and boost self esteem by trying to create a prominent place for themselves in traditional faith history (like being "the lost tribe" from the Bible) or to imagine a glorified reason for suffering and oppression (that's the hook that new agers use to push "past lives," "aliens," etc.) There is also a phony "Eve chic" that is marketed to Afro Americans. The "logic" is that Eve "must have been black" if she was the "first woman" and therefore her disobedience is subject to revisionist thinking that "hmm, well, already she was oppressed by God and the prevailing proto-Jewish society, so wow, hmm, maybe she really is a big fertile sexy goddess who 'got framed' (to quote a bumper sticker I saw in Albuquerque). Let me assure you, Eve's disobedience to God was total and spans all colors.
It is a credit to the strong Christian black churches how they have not sought glorification that they do not need through these temptations to make up fake faith history and insert themselves in it. Real Christians recognize that all are equal before God and that they do not need phony mystic, self glorification and so forth. Afro Americans who fall for the new age garbage ($cientology is another example) exhibit their own insecurity and lack of understanding that faith in one God who loves all equally raises them to the banquet table; they don't have to make up anti-God spirituality and step on other people's faces in order to become "higher."
I hope these fact based points give readers who are interested in this subject a good area to do further study and reading (real history please!) If nothing else, remembering the points I've made will help you to understand some of the changes, churning, misunderstanding and conflict that is going on today, and also is informational about the problem of violence (Birmingham, Alabama is a case study) and the disintegration of the family.
Homework assignment! Here is an example of taking a point I've listed and doing more FACT BASED reading. In point 1 I mention sacred ponds, read about the Sacred Pond of Ogi in Nigeria. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/international/africa/26worm.html
1) Slaves brought to the USA came from different tribes with different cultures, languages and faiths. Therefore you must realize that there was not one pan-Africa uniform native faith from which slaves were uprooted. There were many and remember that ancestral faiths tend to be tied very much to the actual homeland, and thus is near impossible to hold onto. For example, think of the many tribal faiths around the world, including for example the Navajo Native Americans here in the USA, who link their faith to landforms such as sacred mountains. So a transplanted slave from Africa had little chance to continue their faith when removed from tribe, kin and the land. Another example is that even today it is hard for public health officials to spray ponds near African villages with insecticides because even if dangerous diseases are rampant in a pond, the pond itself may be viewed as sacred and essential to the traditional faith. So how would a captive from a tribe and a village with a sacred pond maintain their "faith" when transplanted across the ocean to America, or anywhere else? Faith was extremely local, often on the village or tribal level; it was not a uniform experience throughout black Africa.
2) Slaves were very spiritual and strong in belief, so they adopted in many cases willingly the faith of the slave owners and the community. This meant Protestant faiths. Catholics were a non existent culture so far as being slave owners, and had only one major outpost which was New Orleans (where there was French settlers). So this is why the vast majority of today's Afro-Americans have Christian faith that is post Reformation based and not Catholic. (You can see the reverse among Native Americans who were under Spanish influence, who had Catholicism imposed upon them in their native lands. Some were evangelized and willingly converted, but remember, they were still in their ancestral homes among their tribes, kin and land and thus were not loosened from their faith base as Afro-American slaves were when taken out of Africa homelands).
3) Afro-Americans are by nature and tradition very spiritual and faith based, and so they evolved the black church tradition that is a monument of faith. What I am saying is that they did not accept "the bare minimum" of faith necessary to survive, but took Christianity to their own and embellished and amplified it in a remarkable way that is a testimony to God's presence in their life. It is not just a matter of the outward signs, such as gospel choirs and enthusiasm for revivals, but these embellishments to the faith, plus the planting of many small local churches were signs of their deep inner faith.
4) Today in Africa itself there is a huge voluntary conversion toward Christianity, both the Protestant form and the Catholic faith.
5) During the Civil Rights movement the Christian faith held by Afro-Americans was instrumental in their determination, non violence, and cohesion of family even in the face of poverty and resistance.
6) During the "black liberation" movement that is an offspring of the Civil Rights movement, it became a legitimate question but veered into revolutionary faddism, to question whether "descendants of slaves should hold the religion of their 'slave masters.'" This is why a strong movement toward Islam (though a "black" version of it in many cases) emerged. The good part of it is the determination to believe in one God, the God of Abraham. The bad part of it is the notion of tinkering with creating yet another model for denominations and faith systems based on politics, social reactionaries, and assuming that what has been forced on someone must by definition be wrong in its core.
Those who did not go with the Muslim option often did one of two alternatives. They developed radicalized "black churches" that use Jesus Christ to promote their social agenda and veer away from devout worship of God as is or they were tempted to try to create an imaginary "recapturing" of the "faith they left behind in Africa." So you get things like Kwanzaa but if you really examine them you could never match them to the beliefs of the actual slaves who were first brought to the USA (remember I pointed out that faith system was tribe, kin and location based). So you get an amalgamation that is political and not actually pure to the genuine African faith history. That's fine if that's what you want but don't market it as being what ancestral slaves would have actually worshipped!
7) As Afro-Americans became if not middle class and wealthy but at least with incomes from jobs or from social services, they started being viewed by the economic upper classes less as a labor force and more as "consumers." As a result the Christian faith of Afro-Americans has been both intentionally and inadvertently targeted for weakening by those who have product to sell that is contrary to the faith of traditional older Afro-Americans. That is an entirely unique situation and I'll let you think that through. Do because it's very important. (Hint: you don't see products being marketing just to Catholics or to Native Americans that are contrary to their faith, though they are examples of groups that get caught up in the general consumerism. No, Afro-Americans have faith busting products marketed specifically to them for purely consumerism reasons... like rap, prison chic and sexualizing "ho" products). Another hint: Planned Parenthood marketing abortions to black neighborhoods, a long time scandal that I do not understand why people are not informed and totally repulsed.
8) New age has crept into the faith weakening game in a number of ways. The most classic example is the "lost tribe" angle. This is always a temptation for any group around the world, to legitimize themselves and boost self esteem by trying to create a prominent place for themselves in traditional faith history (like being "the lost tribe" from the Bible) or to imagine a glorified reason for suffering and oppression (that's the hook that new agers use to push "past lives," "aliens," etc.) There is also a phony "Eve chic" that is marketed to Afro Americans. The "logic" is that Eve "must have been black" if she was the "first woman" and therefore her disobedience is subject to revisionist thinking that "hmm, well, already she was oppressed by God and the prevailing proto-Jewish society, so wow, hmm, maybe she really is a big fertile sexy goddess who 'got framed' (to quote a bumper sticker I saw in Albuquerque). Let me assure you, Eve's disobedience to God was total and spans all colors.
It is a credit to the strong Christian black churches how they have not sought glorification that they do not need through these temptations to make up fake faith history and insert themselves in it. Real Christians recognize that all are equal before God and that they do not need phony mystic, self glorification and so forth. Afro Americans who fall for the new age garbage ($cientology is another example) exhibit their own insecurity and lack of understanding that faith in one God who loves all equally raises them to the banquet table; they don't have to make up anti-God spirituality and step on other people's faces in order to become "higher."
I hope these fact based points give readers who are interested in this subject a good area to do further study and reading (real history please!) If nothing else, remembering the points I've made will help you to understand some of the changes, churning, misunderstanding and conflict that is going on today, and also is informational about the problem of violence (Birmingham, Alabama is a case study) and the disintegration of the family.
Homework assignment! Here is an example of taking a point I've listed and doing more FACT BASED reading. In point 1 I mention sacred ponds, read about the Sacred Pond of Ogi in Nigeria. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/international/africa/26worm.html
Friday, August 15, 2008
How cultists destroy, not help, race relations
Because the cultists never actually asked me a question, to say nothing of actually sharing with me one of their depraved beliefs about me personally, I’ve had to “figure out” whatever sickening depraved thoughts they are having before I can explain and refute them. The more “far out” the belief the longer it takes me to figure it out, obviously. For example, it took me quite a while to figure out that some of them “believe” that I am a man instead of a woman. One who is sane just doesn’t tend to pull out of thin air theories that are incredibly opposite the truth and whacked out and think, “Oh, they must believe that about me!”
An example of a theory that it has taken me a very long time to figure out regards why cultists stirred up hate and agitation against me among Afro-Americans. I still puzzle over that, because I have absolutely no events or history or anything but kind thoughts toward Afro-Americans. In fact, my college music teacher had an apprentice who was an Afro-American mom, and I thought my teacher’s ad hoc involvement in the black community in encouraging not only music but training as music teachers was wonderful. I used to do some sewing in order to raise money for my lessons, and my music teacher convinced me to sew a red felt piano cover for her apprentice’s upright piano. Her apprentice’s house was always filled with children, and I thought it was a fine place. So my early interactions with the black community was always positive.
So I’ve always been dumbfounded as to why cultists raised up hatred and agitation against me by Afro-Americans who I don’t even know. I didn’t see a pattern to it for a long time, because they were busy agitating and making painful other parts of my life and interaction with humans too. But eventually it became clear that there is deliberate hatred being stirred among cultist belonging or listening Afro-Americans against me. For example, confrontations would be set up at jobs where I'd meet an Afro-American for the first time and I'd detect a loathing from them for me as if I was wearing an invisible KKK sign on my back. The more kind I'd be the angrier they would become. This happened three different times, where an Afro American would have a beef against me for being a "racist" before I had even opened my mouth!
I’ve had a number of theories (I’ve had to be imaginative because like I said, there’s nothing in my past to indicate where someone could have gotten a grudge). My latest theory is that cultists told blacks that I’m a reincarnated slave owner. Of course regular readers know there is no such thing as reincarnation, and that it is the most dire of all the lies and manipulations spread by cultists. Thinking back over what I read on the new age message board that I investigated under cover, I do remember now that some old southern lady made up a “poem” about me being some Southern belle during the Civil War “waiting for her beau going off to war.” Years later this has dawned on me that this was probably an attempt to “ID” me as, duh, if I’m a “southern belle during the Civil War” then I “must have been a ‘slave owner.’” To say that is sick and unfair would be the understatement of the century.
Well, here are some facts for you in “black and white.” There is no such thing as reincarnation. People do not have “past lives.” I am not an exception and I do not have “past lives.” There are no exceptions. Far from being sympathetic to slave ownership I have abhorred it through all of my existence. I have wanted amiable relationships with everyone, black and white. I don’t seek out black relationships in order to prove anything to anyone else, since all are equal and amiable in my eyes. I’ve had black neighbors for around twenty years when I had my home, liked them, and shared with them the same “live and let live” attitude I had toward all my other neighbors. In fact after my marriage ended my neighbor bought the snow blower that my husband had abandoned and used it to keep his and my driveway clear, which was very kind of him (it was a long and steep driveway). I was delighted whenever I had a black employee, and I even took a very serious hit, costing me a promotion and ultimately a job, when I defended one of my employees back in the early 1980’s from having to “smile more” in order to please our white boss.
So what have I gotten in return? Nothing but misery and abuse, much of it carried in Afro-American hands at the behest of cultists. God will judge all of you and adjudicate in ways that you won’t like very much. And for those of you who are Afro-American who have fallen for the reincarnation garbage. Think about it. I am quite sure that much of what is told to you is that everyone "has been both black and white in different 'past lives.'" What you are missing is that the subliminal message to you is that you should not "feel inferior because you are black because fortunately, you had some 'white past lives too.'" Um, you don't need white or black 'past lives' to be equal and good in God's eyes or anyone else's. So rather than treating you as a special and spiritual person, people who tell you that kind of thing are giving you a "white street cred card" when you really do not need it, if you believe in total equality of the races, as I do. Don't be played for a fool.
An example of a theory that it has taken me a very long time to figure out regards why cultists stirred up hate and agitation against me among Afro-Americans. I still puzzle over that, because I have absolutely no events or history or anything but kind thoughts toward Afro-Americans. In fact, my college music teacher had an apprentice who was an Afro-American mom, and I thought my teacher’s ad hoc involvement in the black community in encouraging not only music but training as music teachers was wonderful. I used to do some sewing in order to raise money for my lessons, and my music teacher convinced me to sew a red felt piano cover for her apprentice’s upright piano. Her apprentice’s house was always filled with children, and I thought it was a fine place. So my early interactions with the black community was always positive.
So I’ve always been dumbfounded as to why cultists raised up hatred and agitation against me by Afro-Americans who I don’t even know. I didn’t see a pattern to it for a long time, because they were busy agitating and making painful other parts of my life and interaction with humans too. But eventually it became clear that there is deliberate hatred being stirred among cultist belonging or listening Afro-Americans against me. For example, confrontations would be set up at jobs where I'd meet an Afro-American for the first time and I'd detect a loathing from them for me as if I was wearing an invisible KKK sign on my back. The more kind I'd be the angrier they would become. This happened three different times, where an Afro American would have a beef against me for being a "racist" before I had even opened my mouth!
I’ve had a number of theories (I’ve had to be imaginative because like I said, there’s nothing in my past to indicate where someone could have gotten a grudge). My latest theory is that cultists told blacks that I’m a reincarnated slave owner. Of course regular readers know there is no such thing as reincarnation, and that it is the most dire of all the lies and manipulations spread by cultists. Thinking back over what I read on the new age message board that I investigated under cover, I do remember now that some old southern lady made up a “poem” about me being some Southern belle during the Civil War “waiting for her beau going off to war.” Years later this has dawned on me that this was probably an attempt to “ID” me as, duh, if I’m a “southern belle during the Civil War” then I “must have been a ‘slave owner.’” To say that is sick and unfair would be the understatement of the century.
Well, here are some facts for you in “black and white.” There is no such thing as reincarnation. People do not have “past lives.” I am not an exception and I do not have “past lives.” There are no exceptions. Far from being sympathetic to slave ownership I have abhorred it through all of my existence. I have wanted amiable relationships with everyone, black and white. I don’t seek out black relationships in order to prove anything to anyone else, since all are equal and amiable in my eyes. I’ve had black neighbors for around twenty years when I had my home, liked them, and shared with them the same “live and let live” attitude I had toward all my other neighbors. In fact after my marriage ended my neighbor bought the snow blower that my husband had abandoned and used it to keep his and my driveway clear, which was very kind of him (it was a long and steep driveway). I was delighted whenever I had a black employee, and I even took a very serious hit, costing me a promotion and ultimately a job, when I defended one of my employees back in the early 1980’s from having to “smile more” in order to please our white boss.
So what have I gotten in return? Nothing but misery and abuse, much of it carried in Afro-American hands at the behest of cultists. God will judge all of you and adjudicate in ways that you won’t like very much. And for those of you who are Afro-American who have fallen for the reincarnation garbage. Think about it. I am quite sure that much of what is told to you is that everyone "has been both black and white in different 'past lives.'" What you are missing is that the subliminal message to you is that you should not "feel inferior because you are black because fortunately, you had some 'white past lives too.'" Um, you don't need white or black 'past lives' to be equal and good in God's eyes or anyone else's. So rather than treating you as a special and spiritual person, people who tell you that kind of thing are giving you a "white street cred card" when you really do not need it, if you believe in total equality of the races, as I do. Don't be played for a fool.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Personal musings about race relationships
I've blogged about this before, but have learned that I guess I just have to keep repeating myself over and over and over again. Plus I thought of a true event from my personal life to share.
The reason it is on my mind is that one of the talk show hosts today mentioned how racial sensitivity has even extended into some people misunderstanding vocabulary that has nothing to do with race but has racial sounding syllables (I'm not even going to type them here, even though it's just plain English grammar) or objects that are "black" are now suspect in normal speech. I can relate.
For some reason early in my adulthood I discovered that Afro Americans I didn't even know were hostile to me. Not being racist, I didn't notice a pattern. For every couple of Afro Americans who hated me for no reason, there were whites that hated me for absolutely no reason also. So I never noticed a particular pattern except, of course, wondering why humans in general hate before even having a reason. Later, as I've related to the point that I'm sick of the subject myself, I discovered that stalking cultists had spread rumors about me and in particular, stoked imaginary grudges.
What do I mean by an imaginary grudge? Cultists cultivated amongst themselves and their entourages that people 1) carried over "beefs" from their "previous lives" (reminder: that is their delusion, there is no reincarnation) and 2) examined words slips, Freudian slips, speech patterns, friendship patterns and "butt kissing" patterns in order to "reveal" hidden prejudices etc. For example, if someone never slept with an Afro American, they were on the "suspect list" of being "racist." If you used a term that was subversive humor (such as I and my husband used) rather than that being identified correctly as a mark of solidarity and subversiveness, it was instead, most ignorantly and simplistically, assumed to be racist. I'll post more on the subversive humor aspect of the racial problem some other time, when I think the public mood is such that people can pretend to be all grown up and read it as adults. Maybe I have to check the "astrology charts" and wait for "Mercury to enter Cancer" before I do that, HA HA HA. (That is ironic and sarcastic laughter).
Anyway, I did think of a tender story I wanted to share. My husband and I separated in 1992 and our divorce was finalized end of 1993. We split on very amiable terms and in fact I knew about his dating life (his "top two" and "which one he picked.") He got married soon after we divorced and his wife is Afro American. She's a nice lady so far as I can tell (I only met her once), very pretty (and THIN! Not all chubby like me!!) She's very high in the medical profession and for privacy sake I won't give more detail.
As soon as they married I asked my husband if they were planning to have children. I was hoping that he'd say yes. But he told me they were both lukewarm on the subject (as he was when we were married, which was fine because as I've explained before, I knew any children of mine would have been in dire danger from cultists, so one reason I let him "pick me" as a wife was that I knew he would not press me on having children, no, far from it in fact.) So because I thought he'd make a fine dad and he had missed out on having kids, through his own choice, I really hoped that he and his wife would have kids. Remember, this is in 1994-5 that we had this conversation. I would have loved for them to have kids and I think they would have been adorable.
Can you now understand how unjust accusations of ME being racist have been? Sometimes it seems I'm the only one urging Afro Americans to have children and not the "liberal sacrament" of abortion. So there is PROOF that far from being racist, I had hoped that my own ex-husband would have children with his Afro-American wife.
In 1995 someone I inherited as a "employee" who was Afro-American accused me to my face of "not liking her" because I'm a "racist" and that my husband "married a black woman" and I'm "mad about that." Obviously nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet she contributed whole heartedly to making my life a living hell. Gee, I wonder where she got the idea that I was racist from?
God sure knows the answer to that and he's not very happy about it.
The reason it is on my mind is that one of the talk show hosts today mentioned how racial sensitivity has even extended into some people misunderstanding vocabulary that has nothing to do with race but has racial sounding syllables (I'm not even going to type them here, even though it's just plain English grammar) or objects that are "black" are now suspect in normal speech. I can relate.
For some reason early in my adulthood I discovered that Afro Americans I didn't even know were hostile to me. Not being racist, I didn't notice a pattern. For every couple of Afro Americans who hated me for no reason, there were whites that hated me for absolutely no reason also. So I never noticed a particular pattern except, of course, wondering why humans in general hate before even having a reason. Later, as I've related to the point that I'm sick of the subject myself, I discovered that stalking cultists had spread rumors about me and in particular, stoked imaginary grudges.
What do I mean by an imaginary grudge? Cultists cultivated amongst themselves and their entourages that people 1) carried over "beefs" from their "previous lives" (reminder: that is their delusion, there is no reincarnation) and 2) examined words slips, Freudian slips, speech patterns, friendship patterns and "butt kissing" patterns in order to "reveal" hidden prejudices etc. For example, if someone never slept with an Afro American, they were on the "suspect list" of being "racist." If you used a term that was subversive humor (such as I and my husband used) rather than that being identified correctly as a mark of solidarity and subversiveness, it was instead, most ignorantly and simplistically, assumed to be racist. I'll post more on the subversive humor aspect of the racial problem some other time, when I think the public mood is such that people can pretend to be all grown up and read it as adults. Maybe I have to check the "astrology charts" and wait for "Mercury to enter Cancer" before I do that, HA HA HA. (That is ironic and sarcastic laughter).
Anyway, I did think of a tender story I wanted to share. My husband and I separated in 1992 and our divorce was finalized end of 1993. We split on very amiable terms and in fact I knew about his dating life (his "top two" and "which one he picked.") He got married soon after we divorced and his wife is Afro American. She's a nice lady so far as I can tell (I only met her once), very pretty (and THIN! Not all chubby like me!!) She's very high in the medical profession and for privacy sake I won't give more detail.
As soon as they married I asked my husband if they were planning to have children. I was hoping that he'd say yes. But he told me they were both lukewarm on the subject (as he was when we were married, which was fine because as I've explained before, I knew any children of mine would have been in dire danger from cultists, so one reason I let him "pick me" as a wife was that I knew he would not press me on having children, no, far from it in fact.) So because I thought he'd make a fine dad and he had missed out on having kids, through his own choice, I really hoped that he and his wife would have kids. Remember, this is in 1994-5 that we had this conversation. I would have loved for them to have kids and I think they would have been adorable.
Can you now understand how unjust accusations of ME being racist have been? Sometimes it seems I'm the only one urging Afro Americans to have children and not the "liberal sacrament" of abortion. So there is PROOF that far from being racist, I had hoped that my own ex-husband would have children with his Afro-American wife.
In 1995 someone I inherited as a "employee" who was Afro-American accused me to my face of "not liking her" because I'm a "racist" and that my husband "married a black woman" and I'm "mad about that." Obviously nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet she contributed whole heartedly to making my life a living hell. Gee, I wonder where she got the idea that I was racist from?
God sure knows the answer to that and he's not very happy about it.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The color of Jesus' skin
I just read a few gripes by the ubiquitous commenters of online news articles, always looking to make someone feel bad or cause trouble, especially if it can be racial or religious. At least one was complaining that nativity baby Jesus' are pale white and they should not be (he or she was speculating that Jesus' skin was darker tone). And of course we all remember the "Rev Wright" Jesus is a black man comment (and who can forget Kanye West in his crown of thorns get up).
OK, here's the situation. I have no problem with ethnic groups translating art work of the Holy Family into their own skin color and dress. In fact, I love several portrayals of the Madonna and Child in Chinese garb with oriental skin color and facial features.
But it is simply wrong to infer a racial reason for the baby Jesus being pale white in color. It is in fact Biblically supported. Here is why. If you read Exodus where Moses is in the regular company of God himself, Moses' skin begins to lighten and become pale and shining as light itself. It is a feature of being near the Holy Spirit, as Jesus was born of, and near the physical presence of God, as Moses was, that the actual skin of the person starts to shine with the radiance of light. That's light, not "black versus white skin." Light is light and to portray it as Biblically described one makes the person very white. Traditional sacred artists were well read in their Bible (all of it, not the Cliff Notes Jesus Said version), and were aware that Moses was radiant "white" from his proximity near God, so much so that Moses had to veil himself because the sight of his "white" radiant skin was astonishing and disconcerting to the people. Therefore, the baby Jesus is always portrayed in the palest of glowing white, not because "the man is trying to keep the people of color down" or "because the artists were racists." Um, no, they um, you know, read their Bible.
I hope this helps.
OK, here's the situation. I have no problem with ethnic groups translating art work of the Holy Family into their own skin color and dress. In fact, I love several portrayals of the Madonna and Child in Chinese garb with oriental skin color and facial features.
But it is simply wrong to infer a racial reason for the baby Jesus being pale white in color. It is in fact Biblically supported. Here is why. If you read Exodus where Moses is in the regular company of God himself, Moses' skin begins to lighten and become pale and shining as light itself. It is a feature of being near the Holy Spirit, as Jesus was born of, and near the physical presence of God, as Moses was, that the actual skin of the person starts to shine with the radiance of light. That's light, not "black versus white skin." Light is light and to portray it as Biblically described one makes the person very white. Traditional sacred artists were well read in their Bible (all of it, not the Cliff Notes Jesus Said version), and were aware that Moses was radiant "white" from his proximity near God, so much so that Moses had to veil himself because the sight of his "white" radiant skin was astonishing and disconcerting to the people. Therefore, the baby Jesus is always portrayed in the palest of glowing white, not because "the man is trying to keep the people of color down" or "because the artists were racists." Um, no, they um, you know, read their Bible.
I hope this helps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
