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
A Few Thoughtz: The Tipping Point, pt. 1
Peace and Blessings,
As someone who has been in school for about 18 years now, and will be in school for at least four more, I have come to the realization that I love learning and being exposed to different ways of viewing the world. As long as I can remember, I have always felt comfortable in a school setting and/or a class environment. While reflecting on my own learning experiences, I have noticed that many of my most enriching educational experiences inside and outside of the classroom have come during times when I am exposed to and/or engaging ways of viewing the world that are different than my own. Underlying my preference for learning about different viewpoints is the fact that I am the type of person who always tries to make connections between different ideas, behaviors, and experiences. That is why I really enjoyed reading Malcolm Gladwell's (2000, 2002) "The Tipping Point."
To my understanding, "The Tipping Point" operates on the premise that there is a connection between biological or medical epidemics, and what he calls "social epidemics." In particular, he argues that just as diseases can spread primarily though irrational events and occurrences, or through a few key players (e.g. people with AIDS who sleep with and infect large multiples of people), social epidemics such as fashion, smoking, and suicide trends (just to name a few) can spread in the same way. Now even with all of my psuedo (or not so psuedo)-conspiracy theories about how everything's connected, even I thought his argument that social epidemics spread similarly to biological/medical epidemics was a stretch. And although there are some aspects of his argument that I disagree with, I think that he raises some very thought-provoking points about a variety of social phenomena that we should pay attention to.
Although he starts of the book drawing connections between biological/medical epidemics and social epidemics, the book focuses on analyses and explanations of the latter. Because he situates all human phenomena within a social context, he argues that social epidemics are primarily the result of the actions of three types of people: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen. Connectors are people who are well - connected such that they know tons of people. Connectors tend to have a gift for attracting (not in a romantic way) and maintaining connections with people. Mavens are the people who like to learn about and teach people things. As a result, they are very knowledgeable about many things. They are the type of people who always want to share information with other people. Lastly, Salesmen are the people with the mouthpiece. In other words, they are the people who have a gift for persuading others to believe or do something. According to Gladwell, these three types of people are the most important in spreading a social epidemic. The Connectors get everyone together, Mavens provide them with the information, and the Salesmen persuades them to "get on board" with the movement.
In the first part of my take on Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point," I wanted to highlight some of the major parts of his argument. In the second part, I will try to identify some connections between some of his ideas, and the distribution and uses of spiritual gifts that God bestows upon us. If you've read the book, what is your take on it? If you haven't read the book, what are your thoughts on my brief summary? Stay blessed and encoraged, and speekonit...
Labels: AIDS, biological, connections, epidemics, Gladwell, medical, movement, social, Tipping Point
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.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Loving to Agitate
Peace and blessings,
Now i'm not really an insect person, but the Gadfly is a particularly interesting insect, given 1) its characteristic behavior and 2) who this behavior affects. A Gadfly is a type of fly that annoys livestock. Yeah that's right, all they do is basically agitate livestock. Even more interesting, however, is
While at a Christian leadership conference last November, one of the speakers said something that resonated deeply with me. He said that as Christians, EVERY (social) situation that we find ourselves in (e.g. a meeting, an event, a discussion, an organization, etc...) should be different (changed) simply because we are in it. This is not to say that it is something about us that people should pay attention to, because first and foremost it is not us but God through us, and we are called to be humble. What it is saying is that when people see and interact with us, they should see that God lives in and works through us. This idea of the Gadlfy was also expressed by
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste (its strength, its quality), how can its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a peck measure, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house." (Matthew 5:13-15)
The conference speaker's statement, and its scriptural justification, deeply resonated with me on two levels. For one, the statement resonated with me because pragmatically, it makes sense. Since we have been saved by, and thus called to represent JC, then this representation should be evident through our daily actions. Again, this is not to say that we intentionally draw attention to ourselves as if we're saying "look at me, the super holier-than-thou Christian." This should never be our motivation for doing anything. On another level, the statement resonated with me because it causes me to constantly evaluate my life and ask the following questions: Am I letting my light shine in every situation that I find myself in? Am I decreasing so that God can increase and get the glory?
No what's the connection between what I've just mentioned and the ugly insect at the beginning of the post? The connection, at least in my opinion, will easily be seen once the Gadfly's actions are explained in further detail. As mentioned earlier, the Gadlfy is known for annoying livestock. Although the term "annoying" tends to have a negative connotation, there are times when being annoying can be a positive and loving thing. If the purspose of annoying someone or something is to preserve their life (e.g. it could very well be the case that if not agitated by the Gadfly, some livestock would die in their sleep through choking or through some other means), then such agitation is warranted. Similarly, I think that we as Christians have a similar calling, to agitate those persons, structures, and ideologies that seek oppress and destroy. Through LOVE, we should constantly be letting our light shine in a way that represents JC in a world that often tries to suppress Him. In terms of being a loving agitator, JC was the best to do it. During his ministry, he showed unconditional love for prostitutes, criminals, and sinners, while at the same time changing (spiritually, mentally, socially, and in some cases physically) every situation He was apart of. In Matthew 10:34-35 he says
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a newly married wife from her mother-in-law--"
What I take from this is that although JC loved us so much as to die for us and incur the burden for our sins, he also came to "shake things up" so that people can follow Him. Given that Jesus was a revolutionary (e.g. he challenged the oppressive structures and advocated for the marginalized) in addition to being our Savior and Redeemer, we are called to "shake things up" in our groups, organizations, communities, and sometimes even our families, so that God's light can be seen through us.
What do you think? What do you think it means to be a Gadfly? To let your light shine in all situations? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: agitate, Christians, communities, gadfly, God, humble, ideologies, JC, love, Matthew, mental, ministry, organizations, social, society, spiritual
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What Does It Take? (Pt. 1)
Peace and blessings,
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." Inan interview with representatives form the hip-hop sites AllHipHop.com and SOHH.com,
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
part 1,
part 2, and
part 3 of the Oprah show on this issue, I've gained a better understanding as to why I now belong in both the moral camp as well as the social camp. In my opinion, Russell Simmons, Kevin Liles, and even Common were quick to talk about the larger societal (social) issue, but danced around the issue of personal (moral) responsibility on behalf of the artists. No one will argue against the fact (at least I hope not) that the structural inequalitites that exists within our country and throughout the world play a significant role in the myriad of problems we face and will continue to face unless these inequalitites are addressed. However, I feel that while this is important, the greater issue WITH RESPECTS TO THE LYRICS THEMSELVES is what can artists do, and what are they willing to do, to put an end to these degrading lyrics. Talking about one's personal experience, and even the experiences of those in one's community is one thing. Portraying these experiences as absolute truths (e.g. "this is just how it is") to the point where the youth who are listening to this music are encouraged to seek out and glorify this experience is a different thing entirely. The solution to this problem does not lie in either the social or the moral realm, but in both. Society needs to change, but society can only change when the individuals within that society change. Society is made up of people, and because people change, then society can change as well. We determine what society should be, society does not determine who we are.
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." In
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: artist, children, controversy, degrading lyrics, Don Imus, hip-hop, inequality, Mariah Stewart, MLK, Nat Turner, Nelson Mandela, social, society, videos, youth
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Movie Preview
Peace and blessings,
I pray all is well. Below is the trailer for the movie "The Nativity Story," which is basically the prequel to the life of Jesus. It chronicles the lives of Mary and Joseph, and the social, political, and spiritual climate of the times leading up to the birth of Jesus. It looks promising. I think it comes out December 1st. Check it out and let me know what you think. Speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wrs3KJMZ34
I pray all is well. Below is the trailer for the movie "The Nativity Story," which is basically the prequel to the life of Jesus. It chronicles the lives of Mary and Joseph, and the social, political, and spiritual climate of the times leading up to the birth of Jesus. It looks promising. I think it comes out December 1st. Check it out and let me know what you think. Speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wrs3KJMZ34
Labels: Jesus Christ, Joseph, Mary, movie, Nativity Story, political, social, spiritual
Sunday, February 19, 2006
More than meets the eye?
Peace and blessings,
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy ofMarvel .
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy of
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Labels: African, Black Panther, Black Panther Party, cartoons, children, comic book, education, moral, political, social, Spiderman, Superheroes, Voltron, X-men, youth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
