Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Nov 27, 2013

A Thanksgiving Reflection: Hello, my relatives. Today I greet you with an open heart.

WARNING Holiday BuzzKill Ahead!   After engaging in a conversation with my best friend about my Thanksgiving reflections this morning, I became aware that I had sucked all of the joy out of her Thanksgiving. So, if you're of similar spirit, you may want to read this after the holiday!

One of my beloved Minnesota State Senators, Amy Klobuchar (the other is Al Franken), emailed me today and proudly shared the news that Caramel and Popcorn, the two turkeys up for "pardoning" by President Obama in this annual White House tradition, are from Badger, Minnesota! You can go to the White House website and cast your vote for which turkey you want pardoned, and then post your vote to Facebook and Twitter accounts, too. (Don't worry, they both get to live no matter the vote count--too bad politics doesn't work that way.)

So, here's my beef (pun intended). I like a cute holiday traditions as much as the next person, but I'm also coming to this fresh from multiple events at my university in honor of Native American Heritage Month--one of which was a Winter Clothing Drive for Pine Ridge Reservation.

File:Woundedknee1891.jpgOn December 29, 1890 in what is now Wounded Knee, South Dakota on the Pine Ridge Reservation, hundreds of Lakota men, women, and children were massacred.

On February 27, 1973 at this same site, hundreds of Lakota and other American Indian Movement (AIM) followers made a 71-day stand to draw attention to the horrible conditions on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Today, over 40 years later, Pine Ridge remains one of the most impoverished areas of the United States.

For a nation whose story is that we're the land of the free, the world's greatest democracy, the place where anyone can make their dreams a reality if they only work hard enough, I find the way in which we tell the story of our relationship with the original inhabitants of this land particularly shameful.

And, every year at this time, we repeat that shameful behavior by retelling only part of the story--the story of "happy savages" who shared with starving Pilgrims. I don't doubt that that happened since the concept of "givaways" and Potlatches are deeply rooted in many Native American cultures. But, that's not the whole story.

The whole story of our relationship is far more horrifying. It's been a relationship built on lies and disloyalties that regularly culminated in horrifying acts of violence. Treaties made and broken, land was confiscated and never returned (this is still being done today), whole populations of people were relocated to places with which they had no spiritual connection, and women and children were senslessly slaughtered in repeated acts of violence over hundreds of years.

If your formal education was like mine, you've likely learned little of this history.

Have you ever heard of the slaughter of the Lenape by Dutch settlers in 1643 on what is now the island of Manhattan in New York? Neither had I until I heard Steven Newcombe (author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Fulcrum, 2008) last week. Unarmed men, women and children were slaughtered by the Dutch for not agreeing to pay tax on the land they'd occupied for centuries.

Have you ever heard of the 38 Dakota men who were executed in a mass hanging on December 26, 1862 (the day after Christmas? really?)? Neither had I until I moved to Minnesota where there are many vibrant survivors of these atrocities working to heal their communities by telling this story. For more, watch this remarkable documentary Dakota 38.

And, yes, I understand there was violence on both sides. What I don't understand is our perpetual refusal to tell the more complete history of how we became these United States of America.

I don't intend to set up a rigid either/or here--Thanksgiving, love it or hate it. I simply intend to inspire you to pause and reflect on the very real both/and of this holiday. It is a time of both gratitude and regret, both generosity and miserliness, and both truth and lies (at least of omission).

While I am grateful to take this time every year to give thanks, I also regret that this holiday rarely includes honoring our Native American sisters and brothers. While I appreciate the story of Native American generosity that is retold each Thanksgiving, I'd like to hear the story of white miserlieness as well (unwillingness to cohabit these lands together). While I know some of the truth of this U.S. history, I'm annually troubled by the absence of other stories.

My simple request is this. As you give thanks for the many blessings in your life this Thanksgiving, could you pause for a moment to honor those cultures who lived on these lands, reared their children here, buried their dead here, and still survive to do these things today in spite of systematic efforts to eradicate their cultures and their histories?

Haƞ mitakuyepi. Anpetu de cantewaŝteya nape ciyuzapi ye. (Hello, my relatives. Today I greet you with an open heart).

To learn more

Aug 25, 2013

The Butler, the Patriot, and the Patriot’s Daughter: A Tale of Three Servants


Eugene Allen with the Reagans
(Family photo)
Yesterday, I went to see Lee Daniels’ The Butler—a film inspired by Wil Haygood's Washington Post article titled “A Butler Well Served by This Election.” Haygood’s article highlighted the 34-year long career of White House butler EugeneAllen in the context of a brief history of African-Americans in the White House.

In fact, it’s only thanks to Haygood (who once played a butler during his short-lived acting career) that any of us have ever heard of Eugene Allen's courageous journey against hatred. Prior to President Obama’s first election, Haygood went in search of someone who had lived inside the White House when “the very idea of a black man in the Oval Office seemed impossible.” Just a few days prior to President Obama’s historic election, he found Eugene and Helene Allen. Sadly, unlike in the film, Helene never got to cast her vote for the first African-American president. She died on November 6, 2007, the night before the election.

Since the film was only “inspired” by Allen’s life, much of the story was altered for dramatic effect, but some of the more touching moments were true. Allen was actually devastated by President Kennedy’s death. His only son Charles shared that that day was the first time he’d ever seen his father cry. Nancy Reagan did invite Allen and his wife, Helene, to a state dinner for German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Allen’s character and ethic of impeccable service really was as depicted. And, Allen was actually invited to attend President Obama’s inauguration ceremony.
 
Although screenplay writer Danny Strong and director Lee Daniels took liberties with the facts, the spirit of the story remains true. It is a story of incredible courage in the face of nearly unbearable hatred that is sadly rooted in our nation's history, and still bears fruit today. Many families really were torn apart by the generational differences between parents and children over the burgeoning modern Civil Rights movement, both African-American and white families.

As I sat watching this retelling of these often horrifying events (some played by the film’s actors and some actual news footage), I grew increasingly uncomfortable with a painful reality. Although I lived through most of these events, my whiteness allowed me and my family to avoid and/or be largely unaffected by this dramatic history unfolding around us.

I was two months old when teenager Emmett Till was murdered for whistling at a white woman in Mississippi, and barely 6 months old when civil rights activist Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Only a year before, the Supreme Court had opened the way for desegregation by striking down the long-standing “separate but equal” doctrine in Brown v. Board of Education. And, these were just a few early events of what was to become the modern Civil Rights movement.

As the white, blue-eyed, blond-haired last child of four born to a middle class family, I have only vague remembrances of most these events, such as the day I saw black and white images on our home television of African-Americans being beaten by police while cities burned, and heard one of my parents commenting on the looting of stores with "there's no excuse for that."

What is most notable about these remembrances is the absence of thoughtful conversation about what was unfolding before our eyes on TV (but not in our neighborhood) because I spent many hours in conversation with my dad about other things. I can only assume that this was another manifestation of white privilege. It wasn't discussed because it wasn't considered part of our world.

As a Baptist minister’s oldest son, my dad grew up with a profound ethic of service. But, he also grew up with many unanswered questions about the meaning of life. When he left home for college, he began studying other religions and philosophies, and that quest for understanding continued until his last breath. I can't know if he ever found his answers, but I can look at the way he lived. Like Eugene Allen he lived a life of service, albeit a very different kind of service due to race privilege.

He started out in ROTC at Virginia Tech, and was later admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated in 1941 and his first duty was Pearl Harbor, Hawaii where he was asleep on a destroyer the morning of December 7th when the first Japanese bombs flew. He ended the war as a fighter pilot on the USS Essex from which he flew a sortie over the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945 as the Japanese signed surrender documents. I only learned of these experiences a few years before he died, when a historian gathering oral histories from Pearl Harbor survivors interviewed my father.

Dad resigned from the Navy a couple of years before I was born, but he continued to work for the government—indirectly via defense contractors as an aerospace engineer and directly in several government positions. For most of my life, I knew very little about my father’s work except that it caused us to move more than I liked.
 

Dad and me after tennis, 1979
One sunny Saturday afternoon in the late 1980s, I was sitting on the back porch of my parent’s home talking with dad about life as we frequently did. I said, “Dad, I have this story that I tell people when they ask why we moved so much and what my father did. But, how would you describe your career?” Dad paused for a moment to puff on his thick Bering cigar, and then quietly said “I was a patriot.”

That simple, but profound, reply said it all. My dad, the son of a Baptist minister, had found his call to service, but it was service to the ideal of the United States of America. His every professional choice was in service to this country. But, he was also wise enough to question some of those choices when merited.

I remember him sitting and weeping when the secret cables leading up to World War II were finally released under the Freedom of Information Act. He was heartbroken to discover that President Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor and had let it happen.

I remember another time when after reading a history of events leading up to the war in Vietnam (where he served as Science Advisor to General Abrams) he sorrowfully said “we never should have been there.” He also found it shameful that a disproportionate number of young African-American men died in that war because they were unable to get the draft deferments that many whites received.

These two stories demonstrate how my dad was always willing to reconsider his previous understanding when given new evidence. And, that’s why I’m surprised that we never talked about the Civil Rights (or women’s) movement that was unfolding right before our eyes. No one alive at that time could have avoided knowing about the dramatic changes that were happening for people of color in the United States. The only explanation for not discussing it is that it wasn't considered "relevant."

In fact, the only time I remember discussing these events was in 1971 shortly after we returned to the United States after two years in Southeast Asia. For me, living as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed US American in Southeast Asia, gave me a glimpse of the experience of being the “other.” I began to understand (admittedly, only as much as any young white woman could) what it was like to be judged by the “color of your skin rather than the content of your character.”

When I returned to the United States, I attended Newton High School which included mostly white students from the middle class suburb where we lived, and a few African-American students who were bussed to school from Roxbury—a working class neighborhood in Boston. During this period, I became close friends with an African-American student, volunteered for the Shirley Chisholm for President campaign, and began reading books about the Civil Rights movement. That was when I had the only conversation I remember with my dad about race in America, and it was just some questions about why I was reading these books.

Looking back, I understand that my experience of otherness while living as an American in Southeast Asia had created a natural empathy for the African-American experience in the US. I say this knowing full well that I can never really understand the brutality of racism in a lifetime where I have transited the world as a white person. However, my activism was short-lived as I struggled to readjust after living overseas so my dad could participate in what had become a very unpopular war.

Ultimately, my adolescent angst and need to belong trumped my quest to understand what African-Americans were fighting for. And, that’s the hallmark of race privilege, I had the luxury of making that choice to quit paying attention and to stop contributing to constructive change. My African-American friend did not.

Almost 20 more years would pass before I would pay attention to these issues again. Those years were marked by the actions of many courageous men and women who stood up to oppression and made a real difference—they changed laws, but more importantly, they changed our hearts and minds as a nation. My interest was reawakened when I returned to school to finish my bachelor’s degree, and that was quickly followed by a master’s and doctorate that focused on social justice.

Today, with more experience and more knowledge, I can say without equivocation that there are no black and white answers (pun intended) to the question of how so much hate can still survive in this country that serves as the model of democracy for so many in the world. The history of race privilege and oppression in the United States is a long and complex one, and it will take more than my lifetime to unravel those twisted threads.

However, amidst the persistent hatred, there are those who choose a different path and their bright spirits light the way for us all. Although they worked in very different social spheres in large part due to what race oppression and race privilege made possible for them, the lives of Eugene the butler and John the patriot are woven together by a shared thread—their lived commitment to service. Each served with quiet dignity. Each served with courage. Each positively transformed the lives of those who knew them. And, each, without ever knowing it, has demonstrated the profound difference that one life can make.

Both of their lives have taught me that whatever path unfolds before us, if it is lived with care, empathy, and respect, one life can help tilt the social scale away from hate and toward respect.


Me with Cheryl Espinoza
2009
As for me, the patriot's daughter, my service has taken a different form. As a teacher, I strive to create a beloved learning community within which each student's innate capacity for care, empathy, and respect is reawakened. I hope that by teaching them some of this history, I am applying my white privilege toward a greater good.

I view teaching and learning as a never ending spiral. And, my journey of service has led me to believe that we are all in service (or, at least, we should be)—to each other.

PLEASE COMMENT: This piece began as an effort to honor the real butler Eugene Allen while discussing white privilegea concept that is difficult for many whites to understand. When I started writing, it took on its own life and this is what was born. I especially welcome comments from folks of color since I worry that it may come across as white-woman-why-can't-we-all-just-get-along pandering, which was not my intent.

Jul 14, 2009

Dancing on the Razor's Edge: Judge Sotomayor, Sexism, Racism, and the Confirmation Hearings

I've just sent my fourth email to a U.S. Senator today--all in response to what I've heard at Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. While most of my day has been spent writing my upcoming book on teaching and spirituality, I watched part of the hearings over coffee this morning and more over a late lunch this afternoon. Those brief exposures to the questioning sent me straight to my email (and now, this blog).

Politics is hard for me. It's not good for my blood pressure. I know that things are often said "for show" because there's another agenda that these comments will support, but I find it troubling nonetheless. Distortions disturb me.

My first email was to Senator Jeff Sessions regarding his questioning of Judge Sotomayor's "wise Latina woman" comments in a speech. What disturbed me most about Senator Sessions' line of questioning is that he either refused to hear or really just didn't understand Judge Sotomayor's explanation of her comments. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

I believe that the difference between Senator Sessions' poor understanding of Judge Sotomayor's comments and her (to me, very clear) explanation of them lies in an unamed core assumption about the belief in pure objectivity, which underlies most of our knowledge tradition in many fields of thought. However, as a feminist science studies scholar, I know that this assumption has been challenged by many. Notable among them is philosopher of science Dr. Sandra Harding who argues that our subjective experience must be considered in our judgments if we are ever to even approach objectivity.

Our experiences shape our perspectives, attitudes and beliefs in many ways, and lead us to form (often hidden, but deeply held) assumptions about many things. Without illuminating and naming the ways in which our hidden assumptions (based on past experiences) may influence our current perceptions, we are even less likely to make truly objective decisions.

It is not enough to merely assert that one is unbiased and is making objective judgments. In fact, to determinedly ignore the ways in which our subjective experience may influence our judgments leaves us even more prone to biased judgment. For example, for Senator Sessions not to name the ways in which growing up as a white male in a rural town of then racially-segregated Alabama may influence his perception of race and gender is to leave himself open to precisely the type of determined misperception and misinterpreation of Judge Sotomayor's comments that he has engaged in.

This is the very thing that most who operate from a position of race, gender, and/or class privilege miss in these types of conversations. Pretending that racism and sexism don't exist will not end them. The fact that we live in a hierarchically structured society that still institutionalizes difference influences how we all move through our world. If we don't honestly examine those differing influences and bring them to the light, we may never really eradicate racism, sexism, classism, and all of the other members of what Gloria Yamato calls "the ism family."

My next two emails were to my Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. I hoped that sharing this language and way of thinking about this discussion of Judge Sotomayor's comments might help them make a better case in her favor.

My most recent email was to Senator Lindsey Graham. I found his seemingly warm and friendly questioning even more offensive in content than that of Senator Sessions. I was actually physically pained by the contradiction in his thinking regarding the focus of his questions.

On one hand, he implied that Judge Sotomayor may be biased regarding race and/or gender based on comments from speeches, not on her record (in my experience, actions speak louder than words). On the other hand, he demonstrated condescendingly sexist bias himself in instructing Judge Sotomayor to "tone down" her personality in her court. This "advice" was inspired by evaluations of her as a judge by New York attorneys that referred to her as "tough" and a "bully."

Sadly, this so-called data may offer a classic example of a sexist (or racist) double bind. In our hierarchical dominator society, we've defined leadership largely in terms of characteristics that almost directly correlate with how we define "maleness"--assertive, strong, task-oriented, etc. However, women in leadership must dance on the razor's edge--attempting to be assertive may get you labeled as arrogant, attempting to be strong may get you labeled a bully, and attempting to be task-oriented may get you labeled uncaring. It is far more likely that an assertive, strong, task-oriented woman will be criticized than any of her male colleagues who display the same behavior.

It is also not trivial to report that 17 of Judge Sotomayor's other 20 colleagues on the Second Circuit Court are male. Clearly, attorneys rarely have to come before a woman judge. When they do, they are far more likely to be critical of her behavior. If she doesn't walk the razor's edge carefully enough, she'll bleed.

We will never have more women and people of color in positions of power in this nation, until those who are already in leadership positions take the time to really educate themselves about how we keep inviting the dysfunctional "ism" family to the dinner table. We must engage in ongoing learning about the insidious ways in which we all participate in keeping this flawed social hierarchy in place.

Just saying "I'm not sexist or I'm not racist" is not enough. We each have to daily scrutinize our own behavior. If you want to understand more, I recommend Allan Johnson's wonderful little book Power, Privilege and Difference or bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody.

Sep 6, 2008

The Bristol and Sarah Palin Story: Can We Talk?

The Republican Party's nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, is a woman with five children, whose unmarried 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. If this isn't an opportunity to have a real conversation about so-called "women's issues," I don't know what is. So, can we talk?

Although many refer to the U.S. as the world's greatest democracy, it remains a political system in which women are not really free. Without control over when (and if) a woman chooses to have children, she does not have control over her life. Reproductive choice is inextricably linked with women's freedom--personally, socially, economically, and politically.

Unfortunately, as evidenced during the past few days, we don't seem to know how to have a real conversation about reproductive freedom. The Bristol and Sarah Palin story has offered us the opportunity for a complex conversation about all of the components of reproductive choice--one that gets beyond simplistic, either/or arguments and moves towards complex, both/and solutions.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would include honest information about human sexuality for girls and boys, for men and women, and would ask why boys/men aren't taught to be just as responsible for birth control as girls/women are. While the Republican Party has pushed for abstinence only education, teen pregnancy rates have grown in the U.S. Further, many adult men still don't consider it their responsibility to be concerned with birth control--that's a woman's job.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would explore why the U.S. has the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. While the Republican Party has pushed for legislation that seriously limits access to affordable birth control, many young girls lives are increasingly defined by, and confined by, becoming mothers.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would ask us to consider what happens to the life path of a teenage mother who has no option other than to give birth to a child. How does she get the education that will move her beyond hourly wage work? The Republican Party does not want to allow girls/women unlimited choice about when (and if) they have children, but also doesn't want to use government resources to support them if they do. What's wrong with this picture?

A real conversation would ask us to struggle with the "other" side of adoption. Abortion critics never want to discuss the emotional and physical drawbacks of some adoptees experiences--a lifetime spent wondering why you were "given away," or struggling to define a sense of identity, or seeking largely unanswerable questions about your medical history. Certainly, many adoptees are happy with their adoptive families, but there are just as many who are not. It's not an either/or issue, which is why it should be every woman's choice.

The political problem is this. All teenage mothers aren't as lucky as Bristol Palin. All teenage mothers don't have the supportive family that Bristol Palin apparently does. All teenage mothers don't have schools and churches that won't shame them for attending even when they're pregnant. All teenage mothers don't have well-educated families who will ensure that they get the education to develop professionally and economically. All teenage mothers don't have the familial and financial support to help them parent their children when they are still growing themselves. The result of policies supported by the Republican Party that define "family values" solely in terms of a traditional nuclear family is that we continue to make individual women responsible for childcare with little to no network of support.

What about Sarah Palin's story? Is Todd Palin a stay-at-home dad? If he's not, then the "family values" folks have some explaining to do. It's not easy for children to grow up under the public eye and even harder if there isn't a parent available on a consistent basis to help them navigate this minefield. It certainly doesn't have to be a woman, but it has to be someone in the family since the Republican Party doesn't support government-funded childcare.

A real conversation would include uncovering our hidden assumptions about who should be responsible for childcare. It would force us to struggle with the difficult questions about how children are cared for when both parents work outside the home, because the truth is that most Americans don't have a choice. In most American families, both parents must work outside the home.

A real conversation would include an examination of the lives that are decimated by lack of care. We lose so many Americans, so early in their lives, to the hopelessness that leads them to drugs, alcohol, crime, and too often to the prison system. Counted among the losses are the $billions spent in the prison system, but far more important is the loss of human potential. If every American child had reliable emotional and financial support and an equal education, what might our nation look like today?

We won't ever have the answer to that question as long as our policies reflect the assumption of a traditional nuclear family. Further, the model of a stay-at-home mom and a work-outside-the-home-60-hours-per-week-and-rarely-be-available dad is not a guaranteed prescription for a happy family. Unfortunately, that's the model of the "family values" folks, though notably not the model of the Palin family.

In the end, a real conversation about so-called women's issues would help us see why these issues matter to us all--not just to women. Do we want a society, laws, and systems of government, in which only the fortunate few can thrive? Or, do we want a society where it is not only possible, but likely, that we all thrive? If our political leaders had the courage to lead a real conversation, we might actually build a true democracy. So far, we've missed the opportunity for this real conversation. And without it, we may never manifest the democracy that we so often claim we already are--with liberty and justice for all.