Monday, May 05, 2008
Marvel-ous: Bishop
Peace and blessings,
In this piece, I wanted to share a few thoughts on
"Bishop's mutant ability enables him to absorb all forms of radiant or conductive energy that are directed towards him and to release that energy from his hands. This power is passive, allowing Bishop to absorb energy at all times.
When he releases the energy, he can release it as many different types of forms, usually in concussive blasts or in the same form as he had absorbed the energy although he can emit microwaves as well. He can also store energy in his personal reserves for increasing his strength, endurance, and (to an extent) his healing. He also has enhanced durability, resistance to poison and injury and is a skilled marksman and hand-to-hand fighter.
His powers make it difficult to harm him with energy-based attacks; however, he can become overloaded from absorbing too much energy, though his upper limits are unknown, even to himself. He is however vulnerable to non-energy weapon attacks. If he were to be shot by a projectile weapon or hit with a crowbar, it could harm him. He carries guns that fire laser beams and plasma charges through which he can channel his personal energies."
While my thoughts are only speculative, I think that there are some interesting parallels between Bishop's superhuman abilities and the experience of people of African Descent in the United States. For one, the fact that he can rechannel energy that is projected at him and use it for his benefit reminds me of how despite all of the hate, violence, and denigration my ancestors and previous generations of Affrican Americans have faced in this country, we have been able to thrive (and will continue t strive) in ways unimaginable. We have rechanneled many of the things that were originally used to keep us down in ways that enable us to stand taller. It is important to note that I am not including the use of the "N" word in this discussion, because I think that the word should be done with completely.
On a less positive note, I think that the fact that Bishop channels his personal energies through his guns has implications for the prevalence of black-on-black violence that exists amongst black males. This male-on-male violence is by no means specific to blacks (American culture in itself is a violent culture), but I am focusing on black make youth in this piece because I think it is this demographic that Bishop's abilities most closely speaks to. It seems Bishop's use of his stored energy through his guns draws similarities to how some young black males engage in violent behaviors as a way to deal with many of the built-up anger, frustrations, and issues they face in a country where they are often devalued.
Overall, it seems like Bishop's abilities have implications for the complex nature of the past and present experiences of people of African descent in the United States. One possible way for us to deal with the obstacles we may face as a marginalized people in the U.S. is to rechannel the negativity energies within these obstacles into positive energies that motivate us to succeed beyond measure. Now I'm not saying that we must be passive and "accept" things that happen to us; what I'm saying is that we should look at all situations, especially the negative ones, as opportunities to grow, better ourselves, and better our situation. Another possible, yet destructive way to
deal these negative obstacles is to let them consume us to where we respond in ways that are detrimental to ourselves and to others. Unlike Bishop, we don't have the luxury of looking into the future to see how certain choices will play out, so it's important that we choose wisely.
Labels: African American, Bishop, comic book, Superheroes, U.S., X-men
Friday, September 21, 2007
A Christian, A Muslim, and An Atheist
Peace and blessings,
A friend of mine sent me links of the video (posted below) of Bill Maher's 9/7/07 show featuring Cornel West and Mos Def. Aside from a few comedic moments, they discussed some very significant social, political, and moral issues. They talked about perceptions of terrorism, American hypocrisy, three political economic "-isms" - militarism, capitalism, and imperialism, the Jena 6, and the 2008 elections. As you can see from the variety of topics and the nature of the guests, the discussions were very insightful.
What I enjoyed most about the discussions, however, was not necessarily the topics they discussed, but the context in which these topics were discussed. Cornel West is a Christian, Mos Def a Muslim, and Bill Maher an Atheist. Now I don't watch cable tv too often, but as far as I can remember, this was the first time I've watched people from different belief systems engage in a respectful and critical discussion on a variety of topics pertinent to the human condition. Disagreements and emotional responses are common when discussing issues of this magnitude. However, unlike many other televised discussions that are more characterized as confrontational rather than constructive, this discussion was more than fruitful. It provides a good example of how people with different belief systems can achieve common ground by sharing their ideas and views and respecting those of others.
As a Christian, I thought this video was important because it represents a snapshot of the American diversity and demographic. Throughout the world, it seems like two major belief systems are Christianity and Orthodox Islam. Within the U.S., in particular within the African American community, it seems like the two major belief systems are Christianity and the Nation of Islam. Therefore, it is common for family and friend circles to consist of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and other belief systems. Due to the increases in diversity, technology, and transportation, I believe that more conversations between people from differenent belief systems will start taking place and given times we are living in, these conversations are more than needed.
What do you think? Does anyone close to you (family member or friend) ascribe to a different belief system than you? If so, has any conversations about your belief systems come up? Any conversations about other topics? How did the conversations go? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
A friend of mine sent me links of the video (posted below) of Bill Maher's 9/7/07 show featuring Cornel West and Mos Def. Aside from a few comedic moments, they discussed some very significant social, political, and moral issues. They talked about perceptions of terrorism, American hypocrisy, three political economic "-isms" - militarism, capitalism, and imperialism, the Jena 6, and the 2008 elections. As you can see from the variety of topics and the nature of the guests, the discussions were very insightful.
What I enjoyed most about the discussions, however, was not necessarily the topics they discussed, but the context in which these topics were discussed. Cornel West is a Christian, Mos Def a Muslim, and Bill Maher an Atheist. Now I don't watch cable tv too often, but as far as I can remember, this was the first time I've watched people from different belief systems engage in a respectful and critical discussion on a variety of topics pertinent to the human condition. Disagreements and emotional responses are common when discussing issues of this magnitude. However, unlike many other televised discussions that are more characterized as confrontational rather than constructive, this discussion was more than fruitful. It provides a good example of how people with different belief systems can achieve common ground by sharing their ideas and views and respecting those of others.
As a Christian, I thought this video was important because it represents a snapshot of the American diversity and demographic. Throughout the world, it seems like two major belief systems are Christianity and Orthodox Islam. Within the U.S., in particular within the African American community, it seems like the two major belief systems are Christianity and the Nation of Islam. Therefore, it is common for family and friend circles to consist of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and other belief systems. Due to the increases in diversity, technology, and transportation, I believe that more conversations between people from differenent belief systems will start taking place and given times we are living in, these conversations are more than needed.
What do you think? Does anyone close to you (family member or friend) ascribe to a different belief system than you? If so, has any conversations about your belief systems come up? Any conversations about other topics? How did the conversations go? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
Labels: African American, American, Atheist, Christian, diversity, elections, imperialism, issues, Jena 6, moral, Muslim, Nation of Islam, Othodox Islam, political, social, U.S., world
Sunday, September 09, 2007
News Section Updated
Peace and blessings,
The "Activisim," "-isms," and "Misc" sections have been updated. Updated news includes info on the Iraq resolution that just passed in Durango, CO, a video report on military sexual violence, and a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research report showing the first loss of jobs in the U.S. economy in four years. Take care, keep these and other issues in prayer, and speekonit...
The "Activisim," "-isms," and "Misc" sections have been updated. Updated news includes info on the Iraq resolution that just passed in Durango, CO, a video report on military sexual violence, and a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research report showing the first loss of jobs in the U.S. economy in four years. Take care, keep these and other issues in prayer, and speekonit...
Labels: economic, economy, foreign policy, news, U.S., violence
Friday, July 06, 2007
On the Immigration Debate, pt. 2
Peace and blessings,
As promised, I wanted to follow up on my previous post regarding the immigration debate. What's interesting to me is that we have a long history in this country of engaging in or allowing certain things to happen as long as those things benefit us economically. However, once these things become a burden on us, we want to do away with them completely. The way I see it, the current immigration debate is no different.
In addition to contributing to the social and cultural fabric of the U.S., most would agree that immigrants (legal and illegal) have contributed most signifcantly to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, economic prosperity (better jobs, wages, schools) is one of the main reasons that people come to the U.S. The argument that the amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is becoming "problematic" because they are using services that are intended for U.S. citizens holds weight, but viewing this argument, and the whole debate through a historical lens may shed some light on what should be done to address this issue.
This country was founded on, and is maintained by, capitalism. In other words, America came to be as a result of a minority of people exploiting and gettting wealthy on the backs of the majority. The very first manifestation of this was slavery, which was the most extreme form of capitalism. In contemporary society, capitalism generally refers to the idea of maximizing profit from cheap labor. Slavery was an extreme form of this because slaves (especially those working in the fields) did not get paid anything.
It is my belief that this capitalist mentality, or this notion that there's nothing morally wrong with a few getting extremely wealthy off of the backs of those who are barely making enough for themselves to survive, let alone their families, that is mostly responsible for the large numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the U.S. In other words, the "promise" of jobs and the fact that capitalism requires increasingly cheap labor to increase profits and remain competitive contributed to this widely held belief that America is the place to be if you are looking for a job. As a result, people from other countries, expecially those from countries where they are oppressed and in dire poverty, come to America to seek employment and a better life for themselves and/or their families.
For instance, not to sound stereotypical (and I apologize to my readers if this statement is interpreted as such), but most would agree that there are certain sectors and jobs that appear to be primarily occupied by immigrants. It seems like allowing immigrants to come to America and employing them to work for cheap is "cool" with major corporations and the government (they are actually one in the same) as long as the primary "consequences" of this decision are increased profits, maintenance of vital institutions, and the perpetuation of the capitalist ethos. A "consequence" that America did not expect, however, was the realization that immigrants are not just workers but human beings, and that they felt entitled, citizen or not, to utilize the services of the country that is prospering from their labor.
Now i'm not saying that nothing should be done about immigration in America because there should be. What I am saying is that in order to fully address the issue in a way that values the humanity of each immigrant and of all those involved, America must take a hard look at the cultural ethos which helped create the situation that Americans are complaining about now. Trying to address this issue by only focusing on what to do with the illegal immigrants in this country and prevent more from entering the country will not suffice. Capitalist ideas are a huge part of the problem, and thus addressing these ideas are an integral part of the solution. It's not just a political and economic issue, but a moral one.....
What do you think? What role (if any) do you think America's promotion of capitalism plays in the massive flow of immigration the country has seen in the past 20 or so years? Weigh in and speekonit...
As promised, I wanted to follow up on my previous post regarding the immigration debate. What's interesting to me is that we have a long history in this country of engaging in or allowing certain things to happen as long as those things benefit us economically. However, once these things become a burden on us, we want to do away with them completely. The way I see it, the current immigration debate is no different.
In addition to contributing to the social and cultural fabric of the U.S., most would agree that immigrants (legal and illegal) have contributed most signifcantly to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, economic prosperity (better jobs, wages, schools) is one of the main reasons that people come to the U.S. The argument that the amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is becoming "problematic" because they are using services that are intended for U.S. citizens holds weight, but viewing this argument, and the whole debate through a historical lens may shed some light on what should be done to address this issue.
This country was founded on, and is maintained by, capitalism. In other words, America came to be as a result of a minority of people exploiting and gettting wealthy on the backs of the majority. The very first manifestation of this was slavery, which was the most extreme form of capitalism. In contemporary society, capitalism generally refers to the idea of maximizing profit from cheap labor. Slavery was an extreme form of this because slaves (especially those working in the fields) did not get paid anything.
It is my belief that this capitalist mentality, or this notion that there's nothing morally wrong with a few getting extremely wealthy off of the backs of those who are barely making enough for themselves to survive, let alone their families, that is mostly responsible for the large numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the U.S. In other words, the "promise" of jobs and the fact that capitalism requires increasingly cheap labor to increase profits and remain competitive contributed to this widely held belief that America is the place to be if you are looking for a job. As a result, people from other countries, expecially those from countries where they are oppressed and in dire poverty, come to America to seek employment and a better life for themselves and/or their families.
For instance, not to sound stereotypical (and I apologize to my readers if this statement is interpreted as such), but most would agree that there are certain sectors and jobs that appear to be primarily occupied by immigrants. It seems like allowing immigrants to come to America and employing them to work for cheap is "cool" with major corporations and the government (they are actually one in the same) as long as the primary "consequences" of this decision are increased profits, maintenance of vital institutions, and the perpetuation of the capitalist ethos. A "consequence" that America did not expect, however, was the realization that immigrants are not just workers but human beings, and that they felt entitled, citizen or not, to utilize the services of the country that is prospering from their labor.
Now i'm not saying that nothing should be done about immigration in America because there should be. What I am saying is that in order to fully address the issue in a way that values the humanity of each immigrant and of all those involved, America must take a hard look at the cultural ethos which helped create the situation that Americans are complaining about now. Trying to address this issue by only focusing on what to do with the illegal immigrants in this country and prevent more from entering the country will not suffice. Capitalist ideas are a huge part of the problem, and thus addressing these ideas are an integral part of the solution. It's not just a political and economic issue, but a moral one.....
What do you think? What role (if any) do you think America's promotion of capitalism plays in the massive flow of immigration the country has seen in the past 20 or so years? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: America, capitalist, citizens, cultural, debate, economic, employment, government, humanity, illegal, immigration, institutions, legal, minority, moral, political, slavery, social, U.S.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
On the Immigration Debate, pt. 1
Peace and blessings,
Due to my "i'm glad the semester's over, now i'm going to big chill for a month" mode, the page has not been updated in a little over two weeks. Since beginning Monday I will be working and thus busy, the page will be updated more often as I'll be in "productivity" mode (at least that's the plan, lol).
For a while now, and especially within the last 2-3 years, the immigration debate has probably been the most important wide-scale civil and human rights issue facing the U.S. As with any debate, there are generally two sides that the media "portrays" as being in opposition to one another. One side generaly believes that immigration, especially illegal immigration has gotten so out of hand in the U.S. that it is affecting U.S. - born citizens' ability to receive health and social services, as well as employment. This view holds that the U.S. needs more stringent policies for illegal immigration, and possibly deport immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally. The other side generally believes that immigrants, legal and illegal, have and continue to contribute to the economy and culture of the U.S. Moreover, immigrants are first and foremost human beings who, like the everyone else, are doing the best they can to provide a stable, healthy life for themselves and their families. According to this view, any immigration reform should keep these two points in mind.
Actions have been taken on both sides to address this issue. Recently, some states have alreadypassed laws limiting opportunities for illegal immigrants. On the other side, faith-based institutions and organizations are arguing for and taking steps to protect illegal immgrants from ostracism and persecution. This movement is known as the new sanctuary movement, which consists of organizations providing services, shelter, and solace to illegal immigrants.
Regardless of which side you align more closely with, one thing's for sure:immigration reform must be fair and just for all involved. More on this issue will be coming soon, but I just wanted to try and frame the debate for those who may not be familiar with the issue (e.g. some people may live in a state where illegal immigration is not a serious issue), as well as for those who are aware of the debate, but feel that it is not important to them personally. My goal with part two of this post, will be to hopefully address how this issue is not only important for Christians, but for all humanity.
What are your takes on the immigration debate? On which side do you align with? How do you think it should be addressed? Weigh in and speekonit...
Due to my "i'm glad the semester's over, now i'm going to big chill for a month" mode, the page has not been updated in a little over two weeks. Since beginning Monday I will be working and thus busy, the page will be updated more often as I'll be in "productivity" mode (at least that's the plan, lol).
For a while now, and especially within the last 2-3 years, the immigration debate has probably been the most important wide-scale civil and human rights issue facing the U.S. As with any debate, there are generally two sides that the media "portrays" as being in opposition to one another. One side generaly believes that immigration, especially illegal immigration has gotten so out of hand in the U.S. that it is affecting U.S. - born citizens' ability to receive health and social services, as well as employment. This view holds that the U.S. needs more stringent policies for illegal immigration, and possibly deport immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally. The other side generally believes that immigrants, legal and illegal, have and continue to contribute to the economy and culture of the U.S. Moreover, immigrants are first and foremost human beings who, like the everyone else, are doing the best they can to provide a stable, healthy life for themselves and their families. According to this view, any immigration reform should keep these two points in mind.
Actions have been taken on both sides to address this issue. Recently, some states have already
Regardless of which side you align more closely with, one thing's for sure:
What are your takes on the immigration debate? On which side do you align with? How do you think it should be addressed? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: Christians, Cross Movement, debate, employement, health, humanity, illegal, immigration, legal, reform, social, U.S.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Worlds Apart
Peace and blessings,
The following topic I am about to discuss and the question I am going to pose to the readers stems from two influences. The first influence has to do with a graduate course I took about a year ago. It was an urban education course and we dealt a great deal with theories which sought to best explain the past and present educational disparities affecting children and their families. Most, if not all of these theories can be grouped in either one of two categories. On one end, there are "race-oriented" theories that generally argue that the main source of inequality within the U.S. is race, such that there is a dominant race and ideology which oppresses and trumps other races and ideologies. On the other end, there are "class-oriented" theories, which generally argue that to understand the extent of inequality in the U.S., we must understand the ways in which the U.S. is stratified based on class, and the effect of people's class levels on their(quality of)life chances. I'm not going to describe these theories in detail, but just wanted to provide a "snap - shot" to which to base the discussion. However, it is important to note that by categorizing these theories as race - and class - oriented I am not saying that they only focus on one or the other. Instead, these categorizations reflect the extent to which the theorists' in their respective camps felt that either race or class was more important in understanding injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Ok, enough of the academic mumbo-jumbo, lol. I know that few would disagree with the idea that both race and class are important with respects to understanding inequality in the U.S. Furthermore, I agree with the idea that issues of race and class are related, and that they are in combination with, not in isolation from each other (Collins, 1990). For example, assuming that the socioeconomic status of both individuals are identical, most would agree that a poor white person would still be in a more privelaged position in the U.S. than a poor black or brown person. Although this may be true and I believe that any problem entails a myriad of factors, I think that in some instances, some factors are more important in explaining inequality in a given context than others. From my personal experience and point of view, it seems that whereas as race issues appeared to be more salient during the times of slavery up to the civil rights era, it seems that class - related issues have become more important in explaining contemporary injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Despite witnessing and being a victim of racist beliefs and actions, my position on this issue stems from two related beliefs. First, it seems that at least within my experience, there is a difference (nowadays) between the effects of racism and the effects of classism. With regards to race, racist beliefs and actions have many effects on the individual or people to whom these beliefs and actions are directed. One can be affected symbolically (one interprets a racist comment about himself or herself to be "true"), psychologically (internalization of racist beliefs and actions), socially (some groups are privelaged over others), and/or materially (an applicant does not get hired because of his or her race). With regards to class differences, it appears that the implications of these differences are primarily social and material. In other words, in contemporary U.S. society it appears that one's life chances are more determined by the socioeconomic resources people, their parents, and/or ancestors have or had, than on their race. As mentioned earlier, this is not to say that race and socioeconomic resources are unrelated, because it is clear that there are serious race trends with regards to who belongs to the upper, middle, working, and lower classes. However, what I am saying is that one's economic resources, and the social networks one establishes as a result, have a significant bearing on the quality of instutions "made available" to him or her, and on their life chances.
Second, it is this emphasis on social and material effects that I think makes class issues an extremely signifcant factor in U.S. inequality due to the sharp distinctions often drawn between upper and lower classes. I feel that in general (because there are always exceptions), distinctions based on race in the U.S. were more sharp in the past than they are now. For instance, there has been much collaboration and unity amongst races in certain contexts, such as friendships, relationships, and organizations. In contrast, there does not appear to be (or at least I am not aware of) such collaboration and unity among people of certain economic classes. It seems much more likely for one to have friends and relationships with people of different races, than for upper class people to associate with, let alone establish meaningful relationships with working class or lower class people. Because upper class people's life chances are often so drastically different than those of the working and lower class, there are less opportunities for these groups' paths to cross in meaningful ways. People of different races but of the same class level are more likely to come together on common issues than people of the same race but from different class levels.
As these are only my thoughts from my own observations and experiences, I am interested in what others think. Based on your own experiences and observations, would you say that race or class is more important in explaining contemporary U.S. inequality? Or do you think that they are so intertwined that one cannot be viewed as a more important determinant of U.S. inequality than the other? Weigh in and speekonit..
Collins, P.H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. NY: Routledge
The following topic I am about to discuss and the question I am going to pose to the readers stems from two influences. The first influence has to do with a graduate course I took about a year ago. It was an urban education course and we dealt a great deal with theories which sought to best explain the past and present educational disparities affecting children and their families. Most, if not all of these theories can be grouped in either one of two categories. On one end, there are "race-oriented" theories that generally argue that the main source of inequality within the U.S. is race, such that there is a dominant race and ideology which oppresses and trumps other races and ideologies. On the other end, there are "class-oriented" theories, which generally argue that to understand the extent of inequality in the U.S., we must understand the ways in which the U.S. is stratified based on class, and the effect of people's class levels on their(quality of)life chances. I'm not going to describe these theories in detail, but just wanted to provide a "snap - shot" to which to base the discussion. However, it is important to note that by categorizing these theories as race - and class - oriented I am not saying that they only focus on one or the other. Instead, these categorizations reflect the extent to which the theorists' in their respective camps felt that either race or class was more important in understanding injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Ok, enough of the academic mumbo-jumbo, lol. I know that few would disagree with the idea that both race and class are important with respects to understanding inequality in the U.S. Furthermore, I agree with the idea that issues of race and class are related, and that they are in combination with, not in isolation from each other (Collins, 1990). For example, assuming that the socioeconomic status of both individuals are identical, most would agree that a poor white person would still be in a more privelaged position in the U.S. than a poor black or brown person. Although this may be true and I believe that any problem entails a myriad of factors, I think that in some instances, some factors are more important in explaining inequality in a given context than others. From my personal experience and point of view, it seems that whereas as race issues appeared to be more salient during the times of slavery up to the civil rights era, it seems that class - related issues have become more important in explaining contemporary injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Despite witnessing and being a victim of racist beliefs and actions, my position on this issue stems from two related beliefs. First, it seems that at least within my experience, there is a difference (nowadays) between the effects of racism and the effects of classism. With regards to race, racist beliefs and actions have many effects on the individual or people to whom these beliefs and actions are directed. One can be affected symbolically (one interprets a racist comment about himself or herself to be "true"), psychologically (internalization of racist beliefs and actions), socially (some groups are privelaged over others), and/or materially (an applicant does not get hired because of his or her race). With regards to class differences, it appears that the implications of these differences are primarily social and material. In other words, in contemporary U.S. society it appears that one's life chances are more determined by the socioeconomic resources people, their parents, and/or ancestors have or had, than on their race. As mentioned earlier, this is not to say that race and socioeconomic resources are unrelated, because it is clear that there are serious race trends with regards to who belongs to the upper, middle, working, and lower classes. However, what I am saying is that one's economic resources, and the social networks one establishes as a result, have a significant bearing on the quality of instutions "made available" to him or her, and on their life chances.
Second, it is this emphasis on social and material effects that I think makes class issues an extremely signifcant factor in U.S. inequality due to the sharp distinctions often drawn between upper and lower classes. I feel that in general (because there are always exceptions), distinctions based on race in the U.S. were more sharp in the past than they are now. For instance, there has been much collaboration and unity amongst races in certain contexts, such as friendships, relationships, and organizations. In contrast, there does not appear to be (or at least I am not aware of) such collaboration and unity among people of certain economic classes. It seems much more likely for one to have friends and relationships with people of different races, than for upper class people to associate with, let alone establish meaningful relationships with working class or lower class people. Because upper class people's life chances are often so drastically different than those of the working and lower class, there are less opportunities for these groups' paths to cross in meaningful ways. People of different races but of the same class level are more likely to come together on common issues than people of the same race but from different class levels.
As these are only my thoughts from my own observations and experiences, I am interested in what others think. Based on your own experiences and observations, would you say that race or class is more important in explaining contemporary U.S. inequality? Or do you think that they are so intertwined that one cannot be viewed as a more important determinant of U.S. inequality than the other? Weigh in and speekonit..
Collins, P.H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. NY: Routledge
Labels: academic, class, contexts, disparities, economic, inequality, injustice, life chances, material, race, relationships, social, U.S.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Holding it Down: MLK Reloaded
Peace and blessings,
"THE SPIRIT of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed and qualified me to preach the Gospel of good tidings to the meek, the poor, and afflicted; He has sent me to bind up and heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the [physical and spiritual] captives and the opening of the prison and of the eyes to those who are bound,"
- Isaiah 61:1 (NKJ AMP)
Out of all of of the justice fighters that are recognized within the U.S. as well as internationally, MLK, through his sermons, speeches, and activism is one of the most widely known and referenced. He was someone who embodied the type of love for and activism on behalf of others mentioned in this scripture. Despite the many issues he addressed and methods he used to address them, it is interesting how mainstream media has "selective memory" in terms of determining which aspects of MLK's activism to emphasize, and which aspects to downplay or even negelct. We are constantly told of the movement he helped lead in the name of achieving racial harmony. However, we are less often reminded of his concerns for the poor. We are often told of his dream of black and white children playing together in a racist-free climate. However, we are told less often about his discontent with the economic and political decisions made by those in power that are to the detrimental of the powerless. Despite the various ways in which MLK's life and service is celebrated, there still appears to be
Towards the last few years of his life, he seeemed to experiene a shift from focusing primarily with race relations to focusing on class divisions as well. In addition, he was more critical of the U.S.' capitalism as well as
What do you think? How do you remember the life and service of MLK? Are there any aspects of MLK's life that are not adequately addressed in textbooks or in the media? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: activism, attention, capitalism, economic, Isaiah, love, mainstream, media, MLK, movement, political, race relations, sermons, U.S., Vietnam war
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
