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.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Universal Importance of Unity
Peace and Blessings,
I'm going to start off this discussion like I do all of my "semi-important" thoughts, with a reflection on one of my favorite cartoons, lol. Even though the X-Men is my favorite contemporary (i.e. mid 1990s) cartoon, my all-time favorite cartoon is the
This is my favorite cartoon because of its concept and its implications. I can talk about favorite cartoons and especially Voltron for days, but I'll give you the abridged version. The premise behind Voltron is the following: One cannot survive on one's own, therefore life is based upon and requires
Voltron Lion Force consisted of 5 people, each of which were responsible for their own lion. As a team, they were responsible for promoting and maintaining peaceful relationships among those of other nations or planets, and defended the Universe ONLY WHEN THEY HAD TO. It seems like the Bush administration could learn a lesson from Voltron's "foreign policy." During those times when they had to defend the planet, it appeared as if the lions could not defeat the enemy own their own. Once the lions came together and formed Voltron, however, the team was unstoppable. Initially, I could not understand why on every episode the individual lions would get "mopped up." The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that the individual lions' defeat is consistent with the cartoon's overall premise that one cannot survive on his or her own accord. It was only when the lions came together to form something greater than themselves that they were able to overcome all obstacles.
During his ministry, the Apostle Paul focused a great deal on the importance of unity. In Galatians 5:13-14 he states,
"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self- indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
I don't think that the word "slaves" as it is used here refers to being literally subserviant to and being treated as inferior by another. Instead, I am more than confident that it was referring to the idea that we must love each other in a way that puts their needs on par with, and sometimes before our own. Further, Paul's emphasis in 1 Corinthians 12:14-26 on individuals from different backgrounds and walks of life all being part of the Body of Christ suggests that for Christians, we cannot discriminate amongst each other based on gifts, status, or anything else. Because the body of Christ consists of a variety of different people, then it follows that an individual within the body of Christ is connected to and dependent upon everyone else in the body as well.
Before I end, I just wanted to introduce
Some of the services they provide include providing food and housing, job and computer skills training, drug recovery, and other forms of ministry.
Not only does CityTeam Ministries represent unity with respects to its team members, their emphasis on transforming the lives of the marginalized suggests the realization that regardless of our background and position in life, we are all connected.
What do you think? What is your meaning of unity? What would it look like for this meaning of unity to be actualized in America? Throughout the world? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: cartoons, Christ, Corinthians, discriminate, foreign policy, Paul, relationships, team, unity, Voltron
Thursday, February 15, 2007
JC, MLK, and SF: Who would have thought?
Peace and blessings,
The following image is of an Iraq man carrying his brother away after being hit with an explosion. The title of the piece is "He's not heavy, he's my brother," byHolly Wong
I figure I don't have to remind people about how controversal of a thinker Sigmund Freud (1961) was. From thoughts on the pleasure principle, a child's relationship with their parents, and gender differences, it is safe to say that Freud did not make too many people's "liked" lists. While recently reading his book "Civilization and its Discontents (1961), I came across one of his ideas that struck me. Now I am not co-signing on his theory or its implications, but I do think that he may have been on to something when he addressed what he believed to be the most difficult goal for humans to attain. In discussing what he believes to be civilization's attempts to prevent humans from acting on their true nature, which is to wreak on fellow humans, he states,
"Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relaitonships of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself--a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man..." (p.70)
Although I disagree with his theory on how civilization is always in contention with humans because it prevents us from acting out our brutally violent nature towards one another (e.g. through rules, laws, and social relationships), I think that he has a point when he says that the "love your neighbour" commandment is in conflict with human nature (although I disagree with his conception of human nature). The fact of the matter is, it is extremely difficult to adhere to this commandment, not only because of our nature which revolves around self-preservation, but also because of the "go and get yours" ideology that pervades just about every aspect of our lives. We are often told to think of ourselves first, even at the expense of others. We are conditioned to build legacies based on what we've acquired instead of who we can assist. So in that respect, I think Freud was on to something.
Why is this commandment so diffult to uphold on a consistent basis? Maybe because Jesus considered it to be one of the most important of the commandments. In Mark 12:29-31 it reads,
Pic courtesy ofMicrocinemascene
"Jesus answered, 'the first is...you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."
Despite its difficulty, the fact that these are commandments means that we must continually strive to uphold these commandments. Jesus knew that it was impossible for use to uphold the commandments on our own, which is why He taught us how and why to walk with Him and His Father.
Before I end, I couldn't talk about having concern for and loving others without highlighting this quote by Dr. King:
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgement. Life's most most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'"
This is something that I struggle with everyday, wondering if there's something more I could be doing for those who lack the things that I take for granted. Even though there are times when I act selfishly, I am beginning to understand that sometimes God uses our struggles to strengthen us. I realize that like Talib Kweli said, some struggles are beautiful. Have a blessed weekend, and speekonit...
The following image is of an Iraq man carrying his brother away after being hit with an explosion. The title of the piece is "He's not heavy, he's my brother," by
I figure I don't have to remind people about how controversal of a thinker Sigmund Freud (1961) was. From thoughts on the pleasure principle, a child's relationship with their parents, and gender differences, it is safe to say that Freud did not make too many people's "liked" lists. While recently reading his book "Civilization and its Discontents (1961), I came across one of his ideas that struck me. Now I am not co-signing on his theory or its implications, but I do think that he may have been on to something when he addressed what he believed to be the most difficult goal for humans to attain. In discussing what he believes to be civilization's attempts to prevent humans from acting on their true nature, which is to wreak on fellow humans, he states,
"Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relaitonships of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself--a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man..." (p.70)
Although I disagree with his theory on how civilization is always in contention with humans because it prevents us from acting out our brutally violent nature towards one another (e.g. through rules, laws, and social relationships), I think that he has a point when he says that the "love your neighbour" commandment is in conflict with human nature (although I disagree with his conception of human nature). The fact of the matter is, it is extremely difficult to adhere to this commandment, not only because of our nature which revolves around self-preservation, but also because of the "go and get yours" ideology that pervades just about every aspect of our lives. We are often told to think of ourselves first, even at the expense of others. We are conditioned to build legacies based on what we've acquired instead of who we can assist. So in that respect, I think Freud was on to something.
Why is this commandment so diffult to uphold on a consistent basis? Maybe because Jesus considered it to be one of the most important of the commandments. In Mark 12:29-31 it reads,
Pic courtesy of
"Jesus answered, 'the first is...you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."
Despite its difficulty, the fact that these are commandments means that we must continually strive to uphold these commandments. Jesus knew that it was impossible for use to uphold the commandments on our own, which is why He taught us how and why to walk with Him and His Father.
Before I end, I couldn't talk about having concern for and loving others without highlighting this quote by Dr. King:
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgement. Life's most most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'"
This is something that I struggle with everyday, wondering if there's something more I could be doing for those who lack the things that I take for granted. Even though there are times when I act selfishly, I am beginning to understand that sometimes God uses our struggles to strengthen us. I realize that like Talib Kweli said, some struggles are beautiful. Have a blessed weekend, and speekonit...
Labels: beautiful struggle, civilization, commandments, God, JC, Jesus, Mark, MLK, relationships, Sigmund Freud
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Some Thoughts for the Holiday Season
Peace and blessings,
I must say that things have been going pretty well since i've been home visiting family during this past week and a half. I can honestly say that I do not remember when was the last time I totally did not do anything for this many days consecutatively. Although i've enjoyed doing nothing during these last 10 days, this time off as also allowed me to think about how truly blessed I am. Not just for my health, family and free food (although these things are great, lol), but for the fact that this time of year marks the celebration of when God, through Jesus Christ (JC), established a new covenant with His children. This new covenant is demonstrated by JC's birth, life, death, and resurrection.
I think the movie "the Nativity Story" does a good job of capturing the essence of what kind of conditions (e.g. economic, political, social, moral, cultural) surrounded JC's birth. In additon to the divine occurances during these times (e.g. angel appearing to Mary and Joseph, Mary's immaculate conception, the pregnancy of Elizabeth, and the birth of John the Baptist), what fascinates me about JC's birth is how Mary and Joseph chose to react to God's workings. They both trusted God and allowed God to use them to bring about change in their generation and for generations to come (because we all know JC was on some major "revolutionary" steez). I've been thinking a lot about how God will often use one person to reveal himself to another. One common example is when I'm talking to something, and they tell me something that confirms that I felt God has been saying to me. I also think that God uses one's prayers to reveal Himself to another as well. Therefore, I urge us take time during this season (and always) to think about the role(s) we each can play in representing and/or revealing God to others. A link to an article about JC's relationship to us, and what that means for our relationships with each other, is provided below. In addition, here are some things that we can pray for. Take care and as always, speekonit...
Pray for familes who have lost loved ones during this time of the year
Pray for those who are still experiencing the aftermath of past recent catastrophies, and are in the process of rebiulding their lives (e.g. Tsunami, Katrina, Plane crashes, 9-11, gang violence)
Pray for the lives on both sides of the Iraq war
Pray for the country and world "leaders"
Pray for the AIDS epidemic in Africa
Pray for the negative effect music has on youth and adults alike
Artlicle Link--http://www.urbana.org/wtoday.ephesians.cfm?article=89
I must say that things have been going pretty well since i've been home visiting family during this past week and a half. I can honestly say that I do not remember when was the last time I totally did not do anything for this many days consecutatively. Although i've enjoyed doing nothing during these last 10 days, this time off as also allowed me to think about how truly blessed I am. Not just for my health, family and free food (although these things are great, lol), but for the fact that this time of year marks the celebration of when God, through Jesus Christ (JC), established a new covenant with His children. This new covenant is demonstrated by JC's birth, life, death, and resurrection.
I think the movie "the Nativity Story" does a good job of capturing the essence of what kind of conditions (e.g. economic, political, social, moral, cultural) surrounded JC's birth. In additon to the divine occurances during these times (e.g. angel appearing to Mary and Joseph, Mary's immaculate conception, the pregnancy of Elizabeth, and the birth of John the Baptist), what fascinates me about JC's birth is how Mary and Joseph chose to react to God's workings. They both trusted God and allowed God to use them to bring about change in their generation and for generations to come (because we all know JC was on some major "revolutionary" steez). I've been thinking a lot about how God will often use one person to reveal himself to another. One common example is when I'm talking to something, and they tell me something that confirms that I felt God has been saying to me. I also think that God uses one's prayers to reveal Himself to another as well. Therefore, I urge us take time during this season (and always) to think about the role(s) we each can play in representing and/or revealing God to others. A link to an article about JC's relationship to us, and what that means for our relationships with each other, is provided below. In addition, here are some things that we can pray for. Take care and as always, speekonit...
Pray for familes who have lost loved ones during this time of the year
Pray for those who are still experiencing the aftermath of past recent catastrophies, and are in the process of rebiulding their lives (e.g. Tsunami, Katrina, Plane crashes, 9-11, gang violence)
Pray for the lives on both sides of the Iraq war
Pray for the country and world "leaders"
Pray for the AIDS epidemic in Africa
Pray for the negative effect music has on youth and adults alike
Artlicle Link--http://www.urbana.org/wtoday.ephesians.cfm?article=89
Labels: God, holiday season, Jesus Christ, Joseph, Mary, Nativity Story, prayer, relationships
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
