There was a recent survery that came out that stated that Blacks think race is more of an issue than whites. Unfortunately I lost the link I was going to use. (doh!)But i'm sure one of my more energetic and enterprising readers will locate it for me. ;)
Moving on to the main point.
In many ways our discussion on race is like describing what we see in a kaleidoscope. We're all turing our kaleidoscopes and seeing different patterns, but these patterns are defined by our experiences. The problem with using experience as a baseline is that it's not objective. People are notoriously bad at interpreting what they experience. Do DTR's sound familiar? Haven't you ever had a conflict that started over a misunderstanding? I know i've been in plenty, still getting therapy over a few...shudder.
In terms of race what I think is happening is that white people are looking down through their kaleidoscopes and seeing more colors. Black people and other people of color are looking up through their kaleidoscopes and seeing primarily white. Reality is somewhere in between and varies greatly depending upon what part of the country you're residing in. One's experience of race in the South is going to be very different than what they may experience in the Bay Area or in New York.
The trick is to understand how and where your experiences fit in the wider picture. This means that we need to set aside our kaleidoscopes and look at what the academics and other legitimate news/research sources are telling us about race in America. Once we have done our homework, we need to be willing to listen to one another. This means instead of trying to "school" or "educate" someone, perhaps we should "engage" and "discuss". This is an important step because in America most change happens from the bottom up. Women and African-Americans and other important social justice movements didn't gain traction until whites signed on too. That happened once channels of communication were opened between the groups. What this recent poll shows me is that those channels of communication are no longer working. There's a disconnect somewhere. Until we get those channels flowing again we won't be able effectively examine the structural and cultural issues that keep people on the bottom and out of leadership and moneyed positions. Finally, people let's have an honest discussion about class in America and the role it places in our understanding of race.
Many people are trying to engage in the race discussion in a thoughtful way, but lets be honest, it's easier to turn your kaleidoscope than to deal with the reality in front of you. You have more control over your kaleidoscope than actual, living people. Doh!
1/31/07
1/24/07
The Second Chance
So the other day I subjected myself to the treacly, christian, white privileged guilt movie called The Second Chance, starring Michael W. Smith. While it is very tempting to spend this post tearing apart this movie, someone else has done that for me here.
Instead lets examine what this movie says about Evangelical culture of late. A much more interesting exercise.
On the heels of the 90's christian men movement, there has been a growing awareness of social inequality and racial reconciliation within evangelicals. What this movie shows is an extension of that awareness and that white evangelicals are in their own awkward ways, trying to talk about these issues. But more than that we see that more and more evangelicals are trying to engage more with American culture. They are slowly but surely moving away from the specter of Elmer Gantry and fallout that book and later the movie caused. Evangelicals are no longer on the fringes of of the mainstream. they are attempting to move into the middle.
Part of this move to the middle is finally starting to trickle down into the Bible Colleges. The New York Times ran an interesting article on dancing at John Brown University . Apparently conservative colleges in the Bible belt are finally allowing their students to dance, within limits, of course. This is a shift that i had observed occuring at Fuller Seminary among their younger students. Many there were dissatisfied with their fundamentalist/conservative christian background and were more willing to engage in the contemporary culture around them. So that this shift is finally being recognized by a major newspaper is noteworthy.
Here's the most illuminating statement from this article:
"The students I met at J.B.U. were, for the most part, the kind of thoughtful undergraduates whom top secular colleges would be proud to have. They’re not Stepford students. In 2005, a political-science class at J.B.U. took a poll of 228 students, and while on most issues the students were conservative — very Republican, generally supportive of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq — 43 percent of the men and 55 percent of the women said they believed there were circumstances in which abortion should be permitted. When presented with the statement that “homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in high schools,” only 33 percent agreed. That diversity of viewpoints was what I expected after hanging out with these undergrads for a week. Most were not having sex, but some were; most did not drink, but many did. Most were disapproving of homosexuality, but one student sat down next to me, introduced herself and told me the story of her lesbian love affair in high school. The only thing they all agreed on was that there was something special about their campus culture, even the parts they disagreed with."
There, you heard it from a Nytimes reporter, evangelicals are not a monolithic bunch. Nope, there is burgeoning diversity amongst the youngsters and this is a group that is paying attention to what's going on around them. And this is the group that are going to leading the church, once the boomers step down, doh!
So what does this mean in terms of the movie? Well in my mind, its a start. Hopefully evangelical movies and thought on race, social injustice and reconciliation will become more sophisticated, with more depth. 20 years ago movies like this were being made for tv, now they're being made for churchgoers. Made for tv movies have gotten a bit more sophisticated and the themes they started have leaked their way up to major motion pictures and impacted the wider culture. So, who knows, perhaps in a few more years this move will spark a more sophisticated dialogue among the evangelical leadership on social issues and theological engagement. Moving it from the academic and fringes to the mainstream.
Instead lets examine what this movie says about Evangelical culture of late. A much more interesting exercise.
On the heels of the 90's christian men movement, there has been a growing awareness of social inequality and racial reconciliation within evangelicals. What this movie shows is an extension of that awareness and that white evangelicals are in their own awkward ways, trying to talk about these issues. But more than that we see that more and more evangelicals are trying to engage more with American culture. They are slowly but surely moving away from the specter of Elmer Gantry and fallout that book and later the movie caused. Evangelicals are no longer on the fringes of of the mainstream. they are attempting to move into the middle.
Part of this move to the middle is finally starting to trickle down into the Bible Colleges. The New York Times ran an interesting article on dancing at John Brown University . Apparently conservative colleges in the Bible belt are finally allowing their students to dance, within limits, of course. This is a shift that i had observed occuring at Fuller Seminary among their younger students. Many there were dissatisfied with their fundamentalist/conservative christian background and were more willing to engage in the contemporary culture around them. So that this shift is finally being recognized by a major newspaper is noteworthy.
Here's the most illuminating statement from this article:
"The students I met at J.B.U. were, for the most part, the kind of thoughtful undergraduates whom top secular colleges would be proud to have. They’re not Stepford students. In 2005, a political-science class at J.B.U. took a poll of 228 students, and while on most issues the students were conservative — very Republican, generally supportive of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq — 43 percent of the men and 55 percent of the women said they believed there were circumstances in which abortion should be permitted. When presented with the statement that “homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in high schools,” only 33 percent agreed. That diversity of viewpoints was what I expected after hanging out with these undergrads for a week. Most were not having sex, but some were; most did not drink, but many did. Most were disapproving of homosexuality, but one student sat down next to me, introduced herself and told me the story of her lesbian love affair in high school. The only thing they all agreed on was that there was something special about their campus culture, even the parts they disagreed with."
There, you heard it from a Nytimes reporter, evangelicals are not a monolithic bunch. Nope, there is burgeoning diversity amongst the youngsters and this is a group that is paying attention to what's going on around them. And this is the group that are going to leading the church, once the boomers step down, doh!
So what does this mean in terms of the movie? Well in my mind, its a start. Hopefully evangelical movies and thought on race, social injustice and reconciliation will become more sophisticated, with more depth. 20 years ago movies like this were being made for tv, now they're being made for churchgoers. Made for tv movies have gotten a bit more sophisticated and the themes they started have leaked their way up to major motion pictures and impacted the wider culture. So, who knows, perhaps in a few more years this move will spark a more sophisticated dialogue among the evangelical leadership on social issues and theological engagement. Moving it from the academic and fringes to the mainstream.
12/27/06
End of Year Hiatus
The foggy blogger is fogged out right now and will be back in 2007 with new materials and witty observations. Until then, Happy New Year!
Fogster
Fogster
12/10/06
Tiny Terrors and Super Nannies
One trend that i have been watching these past few years is the rise in parenting shows. The plot is always the same, distraught parents and kids that are evil incarnate. Then like an angel, salvation arrives on the wings of a nanny/psychologist/Mr T. Guess who the root of the problem is....the parents! Natch.
As for solutions, they're almost all the same. Firm boundaries/rules/regulations followed up with real consequences. We watch the parents cry, have heartfelt, tear-filled conversations about their shortcomings and anxieties. We watch the kids have spectacular melt-downs and tantrums and then through the magic of TV have a moment and realization and turn into angels, who do their parent's every command.
In looking at these show, some questions come to mind. When and where did we get to this state? Where is the community? Why must these parent's struggle alone? Didn't someone in their circle point these basics out to them? When did we need experts to tell us something that seems pretty basic.
On second thought after watching the Dog Whisperer, it seems to me that the raising of kids and dogs seem to have alot in common....hmm
Yet there's something going on culturally when we need these kinds of shows. Hillary Clinton said it takes a village, but many of us are not willing to let the village in. Or we only want to live in a village when its convenient and nice and warm and fuzzy. What this signals to me is that between divorce, suburban isolation and the rat race, we have forgotten how to live in a village and what it means to let the village raise our kids.
As for solutions, they're almost all the same. Firm boundaries/rules/regulations followed up with real consequences. We watch the parents cry, have heartfelt, tear-filled conversations about their shortcomings and anxieties. We watch the kids have spectacular melt-downs and tantrums and then through the magic of TV have a moment and realization and turn into angels, who do their parent's every command.
In looking at these show, some questions come to mind. When and where did we get to this state? Where is the community? Why must these parent's struggle alone? Didn't someone in their circle point these basics out to them? When did we need experts to tell us something that seems pretty basic.
On second thought after watching the Dog Whisperer, it seems to me that the raising of kids and dogs seem to have alot in common....hmm
Yet there's something going on culturally when we need these kinds of shows. Hillary Clinton said it takes a village, but many of us are not willing to let the village in. Or we only want to live in a village when its convenient and nice and warm and fuzzy. What this signals to me is that between divorce, suburban isolation and the rat race, we have forgotten how to live in a village and what it means to let the village raise our kids.
12/6/06
Tragedy in Oregon
Before I continue, a brief word on the Kim family. May God surround that family with love and wonderful caring people who can walk them through the loss of their father, son, husband. You will be in my prayers...
It seems as if every year there is always a case of a family lost in the woods. They make a wrong turn and get lost in bad weather. Its almost always someone from the city, not the woods, of course there are exceptions. In reflecting on this i am reminded of our fragility as beings of flesh and bone and how brains and ingenuity are no protection from poor, or ill informed choices that lead to tragic consequences.
While it would be easy to get preachy right now and talk about staying on well trod paths and carrying enough food to feed yourself in such an emergency, I won't. Look, we need to be real and acknowledge that when people get lost in unfamiliar terrain, they panic and don't always make good choices. It seems to me that an easier solution would be to find a way to mark roads that aren't plowed and that people shouldn't be on in winter, unless you're a local. Or simply close those roads off in winter and keep people to the main routes. Seems like a simple solution to a deadly problem...right?
It seems as if every year there is always a case of a family lost in the woods. They make a wrong turn and get lost in bad weather. Its almost always someone from the city, not the woods, of course there are exceptions. In reflecting on this i am reminded of our fragility as beings of flesh and bone and how brains and ingenuity are no protection from poor, or ill informed choices that lead to tragic consequences.
While it would be easy to get preachy right now and talk about staying on well trod paths and carrying enough food to feed yourself in such an emergency, I won't. Look, we need to be real and acknowledge that when people get lost in unfamiliar terrain, they panic and don't always make good choices. It seems to me that an easier solution would be to find a way to mark roads that aren't plowed and that people shouldn't be on in winter, unless you're a local. Or simply close those roads off in winter and keep people to the main routes. Seems like a simple solution to a deadly problem...right?
12/4/06
Pediatricians Blast Inappropriate Ads
Today while trolling my favorite aggregator of news stories (google) I ran into this article. The opening line is "Inappropriate advertising contributes to many kids' ills, from obesity to anorexia, to drinking booze and having sex too soon, and Congress should crack down on it, the American Academy of Pediatrics says." (well duh!)
What really chaps my hide about this is this response "Jeff Becker, president of the Beer Institute, an industry group for breweries, said parents have more influence than advertising on teens' decisions to drink" Which brings me back to an earlier post in regards to a NYTimes story showing that poor kids have an upbringing that puts them at a disadvantage in the workforce.
Which brings to mind some questions; "How can we expect children, whose parents may lack the skills necessary to combat these ads, to be able resist their allure?" "What kind of society targets children, who don't have the safeguards of a middle class upbringing, to purchase or engage in unhealthy behaviors that will keep them trapped in a destructive cycle?" (and we wonder why these people can't work themselves up or out?) My final questions are "What took the American Acadamy of Pediatrics so long and how come this isn't getting any more press?" Finally; "Where are the prophetic voices in our society who can speak up and out for those who are unable to speak for themselves?"
What really chaps my hide about this is this response "Jeff Becker, president of the Beer Institute, an industry group for breweries, said parents have more influence than advertising on teens' decisions to drink" Which brings me back to an earlier post in regards to a NYTimes story showing that poor kids have an upbringing that puts them at a disadvantage in the workforce.
Which brings to mind some questions; "How can we expect children, whose parents may lack the skills necessary to combat these ads, to be able resist their allure?" "What kind of society targets children, who don't have the safeguards of a middle class upbringing, to purchase or engage in unhealthy behaviors that will keep them trapped in a destructive cycle?" (and we wonder why these people can't work themselves up or out?) My final questions are "What took the American Acadamy of Pediatrics so long and how come this isn't getting any more press?" Finally; "Where are the prophetic voices in our society who can speak up and out for those who are unable to speak for themselves?"
12/1/06
Annoyances In The News
I have to admit that i get really annoyed by how the press covers "evangelicals". Take this lovely gem Obama discusses AIDS epidemic with Orange County evangelicals
It goes without saying that AIDS is important and that in Africa, it's a major problem. No arguement here on that, but why is it that whenever the press covers evangelicals and social justice, it's almost always with a sniff. Take this example "The pastor, dressed in blue jeans, cited the millions of African children from families afflicted with HIV." What does the pastor wearing blue jeans have to do with African people with HIV??? Do we say things like "Nancy Pelosi, wearing a suit, announced her candidate for speaker of the senate"?
Or even better "The senator did not shy away from remarks that might have discomfited his audience..." Has this guy not taken a look at recent evangelical publications? Um, hello, postmordernism, Gen-X ministry, renewed interest in social justice?? Evangelicalism is not the same thing as Falwell or Pentecostalism!! Why can't they send someone to cover these stories who has a clue as to what's really going on within american christianity and can tell a boomer evangelical from a millenial youthworker, who probably sports at least one tattoo or a piercing, if not both! So Obama speaking to a group of "evangelicals" about AIDS is not really that shocking. In fact i'm pretty certain that a fairly sizeable chunk of them agree with Obama and Rick Warren (after all they all buy his books!).
But wait there's more!
I hate being sick and I hate it when sick people infect me. Of course if i infect them, that's ok...right? The San Jose Mercury ran a story titled Growing problem: Sick workers who don't stay home
What's funny, is that everyone agrees that this is a problem, but they could only find one company willing to compensate their workers enough so they keep their sick selves home...Google! Seems like a no brainer to me, if you want sick employees to stay home, don't penalize them for choosing to stay home. Right? Course i could get into the competitive nature of business and the breaking of the social contract, but i'll save that for later.
It goes without saying that AIDS is important and that in Africa, it's a major problem. No arguement here on that, but why is it that whenever the press covers evangelicals and social justice, it's almost always with a sniff. Take this example "The pastor, dressed in blue jeans, cited the millions of African children from families afflicted with HIV." What does the pastor wearing blue jeans have to do with African people with HIV??? Do we say things like "Nancy Pelosi, wearing a suit, announced her candidate for speaker of the senate"?
Or even better "The senator did not shy away from remarks that might have discomfited his audience..." Has this guy not taken a look at recent evangelical publications? Um, hello, postmordernism, Gen-X ministry, renewed interest in social justice?? Evangelicalism is not the same thing as Falwell or Pentecostalism!! Why can't they send someone to cover these stories who has a clue as to what's really going on within american christianity and can tell a boomer evangelical from a millenial youthworker, who probably sports at least one tattoo or a piercing, if not both! So Obama speaking to a group of "evangelicals" about AIDS is not really that shocking. In fact i'm pretty certain that a fairly sizeable chunk of them agree with Obama and Rick Warren (after all they all buy his books!).
But wait there's more!
I hate being sick and I hate it when sick people infect me. Of course if i infect them, that's ok...right? The San Jose Mercury ran a story titled Growing problem: Sick workers who don't stay home
What's funny, is that everyone agrees that this is a problem, but they could only find one company willing to compensate their workers enough so they keep their sick selves home...Google! Seems like a no brainer to me, if you want sick employees to stay home, don't penalize them for choosing to stay home. Right? Course i could get into the competitive nature of business and the breaking of the social contract, but i'll save that for later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
