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
Sunday, July 22, 2007
A Few Thoughtz: The Politics of Jesus, pt. 1
" Rather than taking a literalistic or legalistic approach, the politics of Jesus calls for scrutinizing every political policy and policy proposal by this standard: It is based upon the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself?' That is, does it treat the people and their needs as holy? It is important that this principle not be treated as a law with layers of liturgical and organizational requirements. Rather, it is to be seen as a yardstick that at every point seeks to apply mishpat (justice), sadiqah (righteousness), and hesed (steadfast), continually demonstrated love for our neighbors to every public and private act of consequence. This is the way the politics of Jesus enjoins us to approach every question of politics and social policy (pg. 323)."
"If we look honestly and unflinchingly at the political culture in America today, it becomes clear that Jesus' judgment against the religious and political leaders of his day (in reality, they were the same) is also his judgment against the leaders of our day. America's most vocal and self-described politicians 'of faith' profess biblical beliefs while consistently acting in ways that contradict biblical justice. Worse, they portray themselves to the American masses as the definitive moral voice of America, the righteous, divinely ordained spokespersons for God to us all. Yet there is little question that if Jesus were walking among us now, he would stand against the political leaders of our day--and many of the religious leaders, too--as he stood against them in his own day (pg.329)."
Peace and blessings,
I chose to begin with these quotes, because I think they accurately characterize Dr. Obery Hendricks' position as articulated in his book, "The Politics of Jesus." The following book review will be two fold. First, I will briefly (but then again, do I ever discuss anything "briefly?"LOL) discuss the aspects of Henricks' position that I agree with, and those aspects that I disagree with. Afterwards, I will offer a potential explanation as to what factors may have influenced how he argued his position.
In a nutshell, Hendricks (2006) argues that both historically and currently, leaders (political and religious) have in some form or another misinterpreted Jesus' ministry and/or neglected critical components of His ministry. As a result, Jesus has been, and is currently regarded as a passive Messiah only concerned with our personal piety, righteousness, and salvation. According to Hendricks, this view of Jesus is inaccurate or at best incomplete because it fails to acknowledge Jesus' revolutionary nature and his mission to non-violently dismantle social injustice and economic and oppression. Through closely examining scriptures and the social, economic, and political contexts in which these scriputures were written, Hendricks passionately reminds us that in addition to His divinity and the fact that He came, died, and rose so that through Him we can be saved, He was also dedicated to changing the structures which sought to oppress and marginalize the very people He came to save (which is everyone). Whether it was feeding the five thousand, healing (restoring) the lives of those treated as social outcasts, or constantly opposing the Pharisees' and other leaders' illusions of power and dominance over "the least of these," Jesus was always about meeting people's needs (spiritual, mental, physical, and economic).
I agree with his general arguement, and that Jesus' revolutionary nature is often neglected within most political, social, and economic discourse and policies in the U.S. In addition to some political and religious arenas, I think that the media (movies, etc...) is also partly responsible for the neglect of Jesus' revolutionary nature and His emphasis on social, economic, and political change that lovingly and righteously serves all humanity. My only criticism of the book, however, is that I think that some of Hendricks' arguments that he derives from analyzing certain scriptures are somewhat "far-fetched." One example of this is his analysis of Matthew 20:1-16, which is the parable where Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven using the analogy of a householder going into his vineyard to hire workers. In the parable, the householder ends up paying the workers who were hired last and thus only worked one hour, the same wage as those who were hired first and worked for twelve hours. Hendricks argues that despite the general impression that this parable is about how God's love, grace, and mercy are available to everyone regardless of status or circumstance, the parable is actually about the oppressive condition of the workers, the low wage they were paid, and how they were exploited by the householder who hired them.
Another example has to do with his examination of Mark 5:1-10, which is the passage where a man is possed by a legion of demons and is healed by Jesus. Primarily drawing on the facts that the demons asked Jesus no to send them out of the country (as opposed to being sent out of the man), and that at the time "legion" referred to the Roman legions, which was the Roman army, Hendricks argues that the passage is not about an exorcism, but about Jesus addressing the Roman army "for its role in the upheaval that was devastating the social fabric of Israel (pg. 146)." I am in no way a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do I claim to be. I am simply saying that to me, it seems like these conclusions appear to be somewhat of a stretch. Although it is possible that his interpretations of these passages are correct, I think it is more likely that both interpretations are correct. In other words, the passages are more likely demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature and concern for "the least of these" though their illustrations of the equal access to God's kingdom (Matthew 20:1-16) and Jesus healing a possessed man (Mark 5: 1-10), than only demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature.
In the next couple of days, I will discuss my thoughts as to why I think Hendricks chose to put forth his argument in this way. Until then, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
Labels: contexts, economic, Israel, Jesus, leaders, Mark, Matthew, oppression, political, Politics of Jesus, power, religious, revolutionary, scriptures, spiritual
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.
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
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Recommended movie!
Peace and blessings,
I've been meaning to put up a trailer for a movie that I saw a couple of months back, and within a week or so of renting it I purchased it online. It's called "the Second Chance" and it's about the politics and inequality that exists among two sister churches and their respective communities (one church is in the suburbs and the other in the urban city). I thought the movie was very good simply because it was a Christian film (of which we need more mainstream access to), but because it dealt with alot of social issues that I think are not always addressed among and between the body of Christ and people in general. When u get a chance, rent the movie and/or cop it and let me know what you think. Have a blessed weekend, and speekonit...
I've been meaning to put up a trailer for a movie that I saw a couple of months back, and within a week or so of renting it I purchased it online. It's called "the Second Chance" and it's about the politics and inequality that exists among two sister churches and their respective communities (one church is in the suburbs and the other in the urban city). I thought the movie was very good simply because it was a Christian film (of which we need more mainstream access to), but because it dealt with alot of social issues that I think are not always addressed among and between the body of Christ and people in general. When u get a chance, rent the movie and/or cop it and let me know what you think. Have a blessed weekend, and speekonit...
Labels: Christian, church, economic, movie, Second Chance
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
