Real Talk

Peace and blessings,

Here is the second half of the '07 posting. Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...





1)

What Does it Take, Pt. 1

(Don Imus, Hip-hop, and moral responsibility)




2)

What Does it Take, Pt. 2

(Hip-hop artists' moral responsibility)






3)

Loving to Agitate

(The Gadfly and the call of Christians to be agitators)






4)

Worlds Apart

(The separating power of classism)




5)

On The Immigrant Debate, Pt. 2

6)

An Interesting Way to Look at Intercession

7)

A Few Thoughtz: The Tipping Point, Pt. 2

8)

A Christian, a Muslim, and an Atheist

9)

Technology and Society

10)

Health Nutz, Pt. 1

(How Christian living is healthy living)



11)

Of Water and Diamonds

(Juxtaposing the intrinsic value of water with the extrinsic value of diamonds)

12)

Health Nutz, Pt. 2: Joy in the Midst of Pain

13)

Truth of Inconvenience

(Why I think odd encounters are sometimes God's way of speaking to us)








14)

The Complexities and Challenges of the Jena 6 Case

Labels: 2007, artist, Atheist, Christian, gadfly, health, hip-hop, immigration, Intercession, Jena 6, Lecrae, moral, Muslim, society, technology, Tipping Point

Peace and blessings,

In light of pt. 1 of this topic, I wanted to let you know about some alternative technological websites that provide alternatives to Youtube and Myspace. As mentioned in pt. 1, I don't have anything against Youtube and Myspace in themselves, as I use both of them. I just wanted to put people on to a couple of other sites that are more Christ-focused. The first is

GodTube,

which is clear in the name is like a Christian Youtube. The other site is

Cool Christian Friends,

which is like Myspace. Below are four videos put together by the

Community Christian Church

in Naperville, IL, which are parodies to the MAC/IBM commercials. I like the concept behind these videos. The first one deals with clothing conventions, the second deals with "advertising" Christ, the third deals with music, and the forth with the holy spirit.











What do you think of these videos? Of

GodTube

and

Cool Christian Friends?

Have a blessed week and speekonit...

Labels: alternatives, clothing, conventions, Cool Christian Friends, Flame, GodTube, Holy Spirit, music, myspace, society, technology, Youtube

"She's so young with so much pain/there's so many things Shante wishes she can change/
So what she does is spend hours of the day/meeting new friends in her own little place/
Just today she counted and 300 friends/most of them young, but yet some were older men/
But it's ok/Shante says that's safe/her own little place to get away, her myspace"

-Flame
"Myspace" off of the album, "Our World Fallen"

Peace and blessings,

I was in class a few weeks back and came across a very interesting article. The article explored the potential causes for adolescents choosing to participate in risky health behaviors, such as substance use, sex, and so forth. The author, Laurence Steinberg (2007) presents a neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk taking, which argues that choosing to engage in risky behavior is largely depends on which networks in your brain are more salient during a given period in your lifetime. In other words, the argument is that there are times in our lifetime when the socioemotional network (SEN) in our brains, which operate primarily on emotion, arousal, and impulse, is more salient than the cognitive control network (CCN), which primarily deals with thinking things through, weighing the costs of our decisions, and thus regulating our behavior. This is what is believed to being going on in adolescence (Steinberg, 2007). One of the findings which supports this perspective is that in general, antisocial peer pressure is most very influential in pre-adolescence and mid-adolescence (i.e. around puberty), where the gap between the SEN and CCN is the largest, in favor of the SEN. Therefore, because peer pressure can appeal to one's emotional arousal (i.e. a person getting "hyped" up when your peers are encouraging him or her to do something), it's no surpsrise that many of the risk behaviors adolescents engage in are also often shared by their peers. As people move into late adolescence and adulthood, the CCN becomes more and salient, helping one to make decisions that take the costs of one's behaviors into consideration (via logic, reasoning, reflection, ect...) (2004, cited in Steinberg, 2007). The implication from this article is that because since the mere presence of peers provides rewards (e.g. encouragement, arousal, approval) for one's behavior, then this social influence will be more important in an adolescent's decision to engage in risky behaviors than any other rewards the adolescent would factor into their decision when alone (Steinberg, 2007).

Given that I am in the social sciences (education and human development), this article was of great interest to me because it presented a perspective on pre-adolescent and adolecent behavior that I have not been exposed to. What really interested me as a developmentalist is the idea that during adolescence, whether or not adolescents are making decisions in a solitary context (i.e. alone) or social context (i.e. in the presence of peers) can have a profound impact on the decisions adolescents will generally make. With the advancements in technology and the mass incorporation of these advancements into just about every aspect of many societies, it seems like the distinction between the solitary and the social has been blurred. For instance, with the development of the internet, and most recently Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube (just to name a few), one can be in a solitary context (e.g. in one's room by oneself), while at the same time communicating and participating within a social context via the internet (e.g. video chatrooms, being apart of various Myspace and Facebook networks and groups, etc...). This idea of simultaneously being in a solitary and social context makes this issue of technology and society an issue of great importance. As an avid internet user, I personally do not have an issue with things such as Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube, because I use all three. However, I wonder about what having this kind of social access does for younger children and adolescents, especially when they are being exposed (via observing the behavior of others, the TV, etc...) to certain themes, images, and behaviors at a younger age. I know what my mentality was during pre- and mid-adolescence, and let's just say that my having access to these social mediums back then would have been "all bad." Like with anything else, I think that these technological advancements can be beneficial in may ways. However, if not used properly and if unchecked, these mediums can be detrimental as well. Everytime I sign on to my Myspace page i'm presented with images and adds that I don't need to see. And i'm just signing on to check my messages! As more people are becoming connected through these mediums, it is important that we are conscious or and careful of how we use them, and especially how the youth are using them (or whether or not they should be using them at all). Most importantly, we must stay prayed up that God gives us discernment as to how to use these mediums to further our relationship with him and for the betterment of our fellow brothers and sisters, especially for the youth. If not, then we must ask ourselves: Are these technological advancements really "advancing" our society?

Below are a couple of articles I came across related to this issue. Also below, is a live performance and audio track of the song "Myspace" by Flame, who addresses the Myspace phenonemon. What do you think? Take care, stay blessed, and speekonit...


1)

A teen who made a fake ASA Coon page on myspace

2)

Schools and libraries respond to the Myspace phenomenon

*Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: new perspectives from brain and behavioral science, CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 55-59

Labels: Flame, God, internet, myspace, society, technology, Youtube

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

the social implication of this concept of a Gadfly.

In a nutshell, the term "Gadfly" has been used thoughout history and in contemprary society to describe someone or something that agitates in the name of "waking people up" in a sense.

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

LPG, a southern California Christian hip-hop group.

Regarding this matter, Jesus proclaimed that

"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

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." In

an 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...

Labels: artist, children, controversy, degrading lyrics, Don Imus, hip-hop, inequality, Mariah Stewart, MLK, Nat Turner, Nelson Mandela, social, society, videos, youth