Here is another blatantly spiritual post. But hey, it's Sunday (and I will be in church shortly), so I will indulge myself.
Lately I have been thinking rather much about the wide range of responses among the American public to the Trump presidency. One response that has been somewhat troubling has come from certain seemingly well-meaning elements of the American church community - both home-grown and immigrant. That response can be best summarized in the following statement: "We recognize that it is God who removes kings and sets up kings. Therefore, we must recognize that it is God who has given Trump the presidency. This means that we must not speak against the president whom God has given us." Some carry this thinking even further, and say, "Just as God worked through flawed human beings in history to accomplish a greater purpose (as was the case with Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus), even so God has raised up Trump to accomplish a greater purpose." (See this also.) The implication then becomes that the flaws and sins of Trump are no longer a legitimate point of criticism, since he is "the vessel whom God has chosen." Some among this crowd even go as far as blatant appeals to Calvinist doctrine to teach that, since God is Sovereign, and since nothing happens apart from His sovereignty, we who have been the historical targets of oppression should not complain about the oppression which has been dished out to us, nor protest against the ascendancy of people who in the present day want to dish out extra helpings of the same oppression.
I say that such thinking is both flawed and dangerous, as it presents only a partial picture of the story. One of the biggest missing pieces of that story is that God has given free will to both men and societies. Another huge missing piece is the fact that God gives and allows things in response to the freewill choices of His creatures. So when people fall under the grip of an oppressor, it may be that the appropriate response of the oppressed is not to absolve themselves of responsibility, nor to throw up their hands and say, "God is bringing us through trial as He did with Job, and we must not try to figure out the root causes of our suffering. Perfecta es Tu voluntad para mi..." Maybe what we should do instead is to ask ourselves how and where we dropped the ball and allowed this to happen.
So how then should believers look at life under oppressive political regimes? That is a huge question and it requires a huge answer. And I don't have time to even begin to scratch the surface of that answer today, nor do I believe that I have the wisdom to provide a definitive answer all by myself. However, I'll present a few of the thoughts that have come to me from thinking about this question over the last three months.
First, I believe that God has created us to fulfill a particular purpose, and that this purpose involves the full development of the humanity of every human being, as I wrote in a previous post. The fulfillment of that purpose and calling involves the struggle of nonviolent conflict, because of the presence of oppressors and would-be oppressors who seek to make themselves rich by dehumanizing the rest of us. How should we respond when the oppressors become the rulers of the land? One clue to the answer to that question can be found in 1 Peter 2:13: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution..." The word translated "institution" is the Greek word κτίσις (ktisis), and it literally means, "creation (my emphasis), creature, institution..." This is important. For it means that we are called to submit to every created institution, not only to the institutions created by our oppressors, but to the institutions which the oppressed create in order to fulfill their ontogeny in spite of their oppressors. For our submission to the institutions of our oppressors should extend only as far as we can obey without violating our duty to our higher calling. Where the institutions - the creations - of our oppressors seek to violate that calling, we are responsible for creating new creations - new arrangements and parallel institutions - by which we may facilitate the fulfillment of our calling. This is why anarchy is not a right response to oppression, for according to the Scriptures, "God is not a God of confusion but of peace." When the oppressed create by themselves the creations - the arrangements and institutions - by which they may fulfill their calling in spite of their oppressors, this is an example of "active citizenship" as defined by Asef Bayat in his book, Life as Politics.
So then, why are "bad kings" given? Why is it that peoples fall under the rule of oppressors? For I have stated that the Bible teaches that God gives and allows things in response to the freewill choices of His creatures. And it is true that God removes kings and sets up kings. (See Daniel 2:21). So what choices do oppressed people make that cause them to remain in victimhood to oppressors? I submit that the answer is that the oppressed far too frequently become and stay oppressed through a failure of active citizenship. I am thinking particularly of a quote from a book I recently got, Recovering Nonviolent History: Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles, edited by Dr. Maciej Bartkowski. On page 18 of the first chapter, Dr. Bartkowski quotes Syrian activist Abd al Rahman al-Kawakibi: "...people 'themselves are the cause of what has been inflicted upon them, and that they should blame neither foreigners nor fate (my emphasis) but rather ignorance (al-jahl), lack of endeavor (faqd al-humam), and apathy (al-taw kul), all of which prevail over society.'" He also cites Polish philosopher Josef Szujski in his assertion that "...the guilt of falling into the predatory hands of foreign powers lay in the oppressed society and, thus, the solution and liberation need to come from that society transformed through its work, education, and civility. Victims and the seemingly disempowered are thus their own liberators as long as they pursue self-organization, self-attainment, and development of their communities."
This shows us where many societies, including the present United States, have gone wrong. First, we fell victim to convenience - that is, in the words of Jack Duvall, we allowed ourselves to be rented by people who promised to relieve us of the duties of active citizenship in exchange for our support of the political aspirations of these people. Their message was, "Let us do the dirty work of creating a healthy society. After all, we are the experts and you are not. (As our covfefe-in-chief once said, "I'm a genius!") All you have to do is lend us your support by sending money to our political campaign and vote for us." The flip side of that convenience is that we allowed ourselves to become addicted to convenience - that is, to a lifestyle which required no hard work, no thinking, no sacrifice for a larger good - but only the immediate gratification of our cravings and appetites. In short, we became a society whose members aspired to be Ferris Bueller or a character from Happy Days when we grew up. How fitting that Ferris Bueller's Day Off became a box office hit during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. How perceptive also is Dr. Maciej Bartkowski's comment that the Ukraine fell back under the sway of corrupt dictatorship after the Orange Revolution because after that revolution, Ukrainians abandoned active citizenship and went back to watching TV.
This also shows us where many "nonviolent resisters" in the United States are still going wrong. They believe that the power of rulers over a society is a fixed, durable monolith, and they direct their efforts to arguing with the current owners of the monolith for control of the monolith, as Gene Sharp explained in his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle. This is why their repertoire of strategy and tactics includes very little more than protest and persuasion (which might be termed a series of variations on the common tactic of loud complaining). But movements which focus solely on complaining show a lack of confidence in their ability to take their affairs into their own hands. These would-be resisters would do much better to stop arguing over control of an oppressive and unjust system and to devote themselves the much more effective work of active citizenship (starting with self-rule, self-control, and freeing oneself of degrading addictions), of building the parallel arrangements and institutions of a just society within the shadow of the wreckage of their present corrupt society. Effective nonviolent resistance, whether in the United States or Russia or anywhere else, must be modeled on the spread of active citizenship and must not therefore rely on the presence of a charismatic leader who rents the support of the society by promising them that he will meet all their needs if only they will give him their support.
But I am sure that there are those who, after reading this, still think that Trump is a mysterious gift from an inscrutable Calvinist god, and not the fault and consequence of a nation guilty of wrong thinking. Maybe among these people are those who will freeze to death this winter because even though they had money in the bank, they neglected to pay their heating bill. Maybe their last dying sentence will be, "Perfecta es Tu voluntad para mi..." But when they stand before the Judgment seat, they may hear, "You doofus! Why didn't you pay your bills?"
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
The Non Co-Op News - June 2017
As I hinted in my last post, when it comes to opposing oppressive regimes, I have a certain preferred style of fighting. A couple of prominent features of that style consist of non-cooperation - both economic and political - and building of parallel institutions. So I tend to get really happy when I see other people adopting a similar style.
I think that's what I (and several perceptive others) have begun to see over the last six months. Consider the following items:
I think that's what I (and several perceptive others) have begun to see over the last six months. Consider the following items:
- Retail sales have been declining steadily over the last six months throughout the United States. (See this also.)
- New car sales have been steadily declining since late last year.
- Applications for new credit have begun to fall within the last three months. (See this and this also regarding the drop in May applications.)
- Ever since the first outbreaks of the most recent wave of police violence against unarmed people of color (from 2014 onward), the number of recruits and applicants for police work have been declining. There is now a severe shortage of applicants for jobs as police officers in the U.S.
- The U.S. military is now beginning to experience personnel shortages in key areas of expertise. (See this also.)
Sunday, June 25, 2017
A Matter of Alliances
After Donald Trump captured the U.S. presidency in a highly questionable election, a number of resistance movements sprang up in the United States. One of those movements is called Indivisible, and it is representative of those movements whose strategy is to try to oppose the Trump agenda through established institutional political channels. That's not my particular style of fighting just now, so, while I wished them well, I never really felt compelled to join them. However, over the last few weeks, I ran into someone who is involved in a local chapter of Indivisible, and this person told me some of the things that this local chapter is trying to do. The person also commented to me that "it seemed to be hard to get people of color involved in Indivisible...they just didn't seem to be interested..." At the end of our conversation, we exchanged email addresses, and later, this person sent me a couple of links to Indivisible "weekly action checklists."
One of those checklists contained the following language: "After the election…
Like many Americans, I grew concerned for my rights—like the right to free speech, the right to be married to my wife, to dissent, and to privacy. Even more, I grew worried for my Latino friends, my Muslim friends, my Black friends, and my gay sisters and brothers—especially as acts of violence and harassment increase..."
These words were written by a blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian woman who had married another woman. And her statement of concern for "equity" and "equal rights" were led first and foremost by her concern for the freedom to pursue her own lifestyle.
Reading those words and looking at her picture on the Indivisible website spurred me to think about how the Civil Rights movement has morphed and mutated from its origins in abolitionist movement in the early-to-mid 19th century to the present, and especially how the movement's focus and agenda (along with the focus and agenda of the American Democratic Party) was changed from the 1960's to now. I was also compelled to revisit the way I view nonviolent resistance on its most basic level. I am aware that in their excellent book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Chenoweth and Stephan emphasize the importance of building a large coalition of diverse actors in order to insure the success of a nonviolent movement. However, I believe that alliances must be chosen very carefully and not indiscriminately.
And as I consider the practice of radical nonviolent resistance, I see a some very important characteristics, the first of which is that this kind of resistance consists of speaking truth to power in the full knowledge that the power to whom you speak truth may respond by trying to kill you. Second, radical nonviolent resistance requires that you cannot respond to your oppressor with violence even when he is trying to kill you, even as St. Peter wrote: "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are crooked..." Note also that even though Peter wrote of the need for submission, yet he and all of the apostles wound up as jailbirds at various times in their lives because they spoke truth to power by living radically in the truth. (Indeed, Peter eventually was crucified upside-down.)
To me then, to be a nonviolent resister is synonymous with being a Christian. And being a Christian means that I have confessed the Lordship of the Boss I work for. Since He has called me to a dangerous work in which I might lose my life, I believe the success of that work hinges very closely on my willingness to do exactly what my Boss says. And my Boss (as revealed especially by the New Testament) has specifically condemned homosexuality as a lifestyle. Therefore, I cannot join with those who seek to legitimize homosexuality as a lifestyle. Otherwise, I run the risk of failing in the task which my Boss has given me.
Yet there is another element of obedience to my Boss which I ought to mention. According to His orders, I am forbidden to try to use secular, earthly political power to punish other people for their private sins. Paul's letter to the Galatians clearly lays out the futility of trying to get people to act like Christians by trying to force "Christian" laws on a fallen nation. The entire Old Testament history of Israel illustrates this futility. And the history of Prohibition in the United States is another clear example. Also, in the story of the Lord's encounter with the adulterous woman in John 8, when the Pharisees were pressing Jesus to agree with stoning the woman to death, Jesus responded by saying, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Those who read the story to the end will notice that at the end, the woman was still alive.
There is one other thing to notice from the story in John 8, and that is the motive behind the Pharisees' efforts to force the Lord to condone stoning this woman to death. He said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone..." and this stopped them from throwing stones - so...I guess that means that they themselves had sinned, doesn't it? And I think it is quite likely that some (perhaps many) of them had sinned in exactly the same way that this woman had. Their motives in trying to put this woman to death had nothing to do with zeal for Biblical morality, but were rather a ploy to eliminate a threat to their secular, earthly political power and social status. And Jesus knew it. And they knew (from seeing and hearing about some of His miracles) that if they tried to continue their rush to judgment after hearing His warning to them, He would most likely have publicly declared some of their secret sins in the ears of the crowd standing around Him.
Which brings up a point, namely, the use which political actors in the United States have made of private sexual sin in order to advance their own political and economic power. I am thinking particularly of homosexuality and how the response to homosexuality has been used both by the ostensible "Left" and by the Right as a proof of their "righteousness." The Right, for instance, has largely succeeded in reducing Biblical morality to the question of how we should respond to a very small handful of issues related to sex. This has been convenient for them because they have been able to say in threatening tones that God's "blessing" on this nation by which this "great nation" (meaning rich white folks) has been made "great" is under threat because "we have abandoned Biblical morality." Therefore, the great issue of our time is the need to fight against departure from Biblical sexual morality. We need a renewed "Focus on the Family!" There are no other issues more important than this.
Such language conveniently ignores two things. The first is that, according to the Scriptures, my Boss (whom they claim to be their Boss also, even though they don't know Him at all) is concerned about many issues beside sexual sin - and His concern for them is just as great as His concern about sexual sin. One such issue (which they don't address because it would cost them money) is the issue of predatory behavior by one group of people against another. Indeed, in Ezekiel 22, God promises to tear Israel apart, to destroy it economically and politically, and to send its residents into captivity. When one reads Ezekiel 22 and counts the reasons why God promised to do this, homosexuality is not mentioned once. However, economic oppression (and accompanying violence against the powerless) is mentioned fourteen times. While sexual sin is mentioned four times, in two of those cases, God condemns men for forcing themselves on women. (The word "humbled" can also be rendered "raped"!)
The Religious Right has condoned every sin listed in Ezekiel 22. Indeed, their darling, Donald Trump, has been guilty of every sin listed in Ezekiel 22. If we limit our focus solely to sexual sin, the list of Republicans and supremacists who have fallen is quite long, including Newt Gingrich, who was fooling around behind his wife's back during the Republican-led impeachment of Bill Clinton. It also includes Bob Livingstone, who led the impeachment proceedings after Gingrich was outed, as well as Dennis Hastert who replaced Livingstone after he was outed for cheating on his wife. It also includes Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated Bill Clinton. Starr later became the president of Baylor University, where he helped to cover up a massive sexual assault scandal involving the Baylor football team. And as far as homosexuality, Dennis Hastert was later found guilty of paying public money to hush up his sexual assaults of high school wrestlers while he was a wrestling coach. And the current Republican regime in Washington is trying hard to remove every legal protection from women who are victims of sexual assault, harassment, or domestic violence.
("Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the damnation of Gehenna?")
So we can see how the Right has pushed zeal against sexual sin as a convenient gauge of zeal for righteousness, because such a gauge does not threaten existing economic or political disparities in power, nor does it threaten existing patterns of oppression which enrich the few at the expense of the many. But what about the "Left"? For it seems to me lately that the Left has largely succeeded in reducing concerns about equity and diversity and equal rights solely to the push to legitimize certain sexual lifestyles. Indeed, I remember reading a few years back (although I am sorry that I can't find the source now) that during one of the "general assemblies" of the Occupy protests, a group of gay rights activists stood up and proclaimed that the struggle for civil rights for people of color had largely succeeded, and that now the main focus of struggle should be on promoting the acceptance of "sexual minorities." I also remember reading that the people who said this were shouted down by several people of color who knew differently. Indeed, there are people of color within the LGBTQ movement who themselves have pointed out the racism and overall whiteness of the movement, and how it has largely ignored the voices of the people of color in its ranks. (See this, this, and this, for instance.) Note also what one source has said about the alignment of some elements of the gay community with the global far right.
To an increasing number of us from communities of color, the gay rights movement seems to have hijacked the efforts in this country to fight for social justice. The last year, for instance, has seen many well-funded "rights" organizations fighting for things like public "transgender restrooms" even as corrupt white police officers get away with murdering unarmed African-Americans. What is also telling is that there is so little outrage within the broader American society over the murders. To us, the LGBTQ agenda has no relevance to us; rather, the insistence on making this agenda so prominent is one of the factors which makes us increasingly distrustful of the so-called "Left", and unwilling to engage with them in their agenda. This is one reason why we are not rallying behind the Democratic Party - a party which is home to a Governor who derailed the indictment of Darren Wilson, the police officer who murdered Michael Brown. This is the same party who has as a member a man named Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel went on later to become the mayor of Chicago, where he helped the Chicago police department cover up police murders of unarmed African-American teens. So as the Left extends its hand to us once again, we don't trust it. To me, it seems that we must chart our own course. And some of us are gaining the skills and tools to do just that. For the Left as it is currently constituted is also no threat to existing economic or political disparities in power, nor does it threaten existing patterns of oppression which enrich the few at the expense of the many.
One of those checklists contained the following language: "After the election…
Like many Americans, I grew concerned for my rights—like the right to free speech, the right to be married to my wife, to dissent, and to privacy. Even more, I grew worried for my Latino friends, my Muslim friends, my Black friends, and my gay sisters and brothers—especially as acts of violence and harassment increase..."
These words were written by a blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian woman who had married another woman. And her statement of concern for "equity" and "equal rights" were led first and foremost by her concern for the freedom to pursue her own lifestyle.
Reading those words and looking at her picture on the Indivisible website spurred me to think about how the Civil Rights movement has morphed and mutated from its origins in abolitionist movement in the early-to-mid 19th century to the present, and especially how the movement's focus and agenda (along with the focus and agenda of the American Democratic Party) was changed from the 1960's to now. I was also compelled to revisit the way I view nonviolent resistance on its most basic level. I am aware that in their excellent book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Chenoweth and Stephan emphasize the importance of building a large coalition of diverse actors in order to insure the success of a nonviolent movement. However, I believe that alliances must be chosen very carefully and not indiscriminately.
And as I consider the practice of radical nonviolent resistance, I see a some very important characteristics, the first of which is that this kind of resistance consists of speaking truth to power in the full knowledge that the power to whom you speak truth may respond by trying to kill you. Second, radical nonviolent resistance requires that you cannot respond to your oppressor with violence even when he is trying to kill you, even as St. Peter wrote: "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are crooked..." Note also that even though Peter wrote of the need for submission, yet he and all of the apostles wound up as jailbirds at various times in their lives because they spoke truth to power by living radically in the truth. (Indeed, Peter eventually was crucified upside-down.)
To me then, to be a nonviolent resister is synonymous with being a Christian. And being a Christian means that I have confessed the Lordship of the Boss I work for. Since He has called me to a dangerous work in which I might lose my life, I believe the success of that work hinges very closely on my willingness to do exactly what my Boss says. And my Boss (as revealed especially by the New Testament) has specifically condemned homosexuality as a lifestyle. Therefore, I cannot join with those who seek to legitimize homosexuality as a lifestyle. Otherwise, I run the risk of failing in the task which my Boss has given me.
Yet there is another element of obedience to my Boss which I ought to mention. According to His orders, I am forbidden to try to use secular, earthly political power to punish other people for their private sins. Paul's letter to the Galatians clearly lays out the futility of trying to get people to act like Christians by trying to force "Christian" laws on a fallen nation. The entire Old Testament history of Israel illustrates this futility. And the history of Prohibition in the United States is another clear example. Also, in the story of the Lord's encounter with the adulterous woman in John 8, when the Pharisees were pressing Jesus to agree with stoning the woman to death, Jesus responded by saying, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Those who read the story to the end will notice that at the end, the woman was still alive.
There is one other thing to notice from the story in John 8, and that is the motive behind the Pharisees' efforts to force the Lord to condone stoning this woman to death. He said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone..." and this stopped them from throwing stones - so...I guess that means that they themselves had sinned, doesn't it? And I think it is quite likely that some (perhaps many) of them had sinned in exactly the same way that this woman had. Their motives in trying to put this woman to death had nothing to do with zeal for Biblical morality, but were rather a ploy to eliminate a threat to their secular, earthly political power and social status. And Jesus knew it. And they knew (from seeing and hearing about some of His miracles) that if they tried to continue their rush to judgment after hearing His warning to them, He would most likely have publicly declared some of their secret sins in the ears of the crowd standing around Him.
Which brings up a point, namely, the use which political actors in the United States have made of private sexual sin in order to advance their own political and economic power. I am thinking particularly of homosexuality and how the response to homosexuality has been used both by the ostensible "Left" and by the Right as a proof of their "righteousness." The Right, for instance, has largely succeeded in reducing Biblical morality to the question of how we should respond to a very small handful of issues related to sex. This has been convenient for them because they have been able to say in threatening tones that God's "blessing" on this nation by which this "great nation" (meaning rich white folks) has been made "great" is under threat because "we have abandoned Biblical morality." Therefore, the great issue of our time is the need to fight against departure from Biblical sexual morality. We need a renewed "Focus on the Family!" There are no other issues more important than this.
Such language conveniently ignores two things. The first is that, according to the Scriptures, my Boss (whom they claim to be their Boss also, even though they don't know Him at all) is concerned about many issues beside sexual sin - and His concern for them is just as great as His concern about sexual sin. One such issue (which they don't address because it would cost them money) is the issue of predatory behavior by one group of people against another. Indeed, in Ezekiel 22, God promises to tear Israel apart, to destroy it economically and politically, and to send its residents into captivity. When one reads Ezekiel 22 and counts the reasons why God promised to do this, homosexuality is not mentioned once. However, economic oppression (and accompanying violence against the powerless) is mentioned fourteen times. While sexual sin is mentioned four times, in two of those cases, God condemns men for forcing themselves on women. (The word "humbled" can also be rendered "raped"!)
The Religious Right has condoned every sin listed in Ezekiel 22. Indeed, their darling, Donald Trump, has been guilty of every sin listed in Ezekiel 22. If we limit our focus solely to sexual sin, the list of Republicans and supremacists who have fallen is quite long, including Newt Gingrich, who was fooling around behind his wife's back during the Republican-led impeachment of Bill Clinton. It also includes Bob Livingstone, who led the impeachment proceedings after Gingrich was outed, as well as Dennis Hastert who replaced Livingstone after he was outed for cheating on his wife. It also includes Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated Bill Clinton. Starr later became the president of Baylor University, where he helped to cover up a massive sexual assault scandal involving the Baylor football team. And as far as homosexuality, Dennis Hastert was later found guilty of paying public money to hush up his sexual assaults of high school wrestlers while he was a wrestling coach. And the current Republican regime in Washington is trying hard to remove every legal protection from women who are victims of sexual assault, harassment, or domestic violence.
("Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the damnation of Gehenna?")
So we can see how the Right has pushed zeal against sexual sin as a convenient gauge of zeal for righteousness, because such a gauge does not threaten existing economic or political disparities in power, nor does it threaten existing patterns of oppression which enrich the few at the expense of the many. But what about the "Left"? For it seems to me lately that the Left has largely succeeded in reducing concerns about equity and diversity and equal rights solely to the push to legitimize certain sexual lifestyles. Indeed, I remember reading a few years back (although I am sorry that I can't find the source now) that during one of the "general assemblies" of the Occupy protests, a group of gay rights activists stood up and proclaimed that the struggle for civil rights for people of color had largely succeeded, and that now the main focus of struggle should be on promoting the acceptance of "sexual minorities." I also remember reading that the people who said this were shouted down by several people of color who knew differently. Indeed, there are people of color within the LGBTQ movement who themselves have pointed out the racism and overall whiteness of the movement, and how it has largely ignored the voices of the people of color in its ranks. (See this, this, and this, for instance.) Note also what one source has said about the alignment of some elements of the gay community with the global far right.
To an increasing number of us from communities of color, the gay rights movement seems to have hijacked the efforts in this country to fight for social justice. The last year, for instance, has seen many well-funded "rights" organizations fighting for things like public "transgender restrooms" even as corrupt white police officers get away with murdering unarmed African-Americans. What is also telling is that there is so little outrage within the broader American society over the murders. To us, the LGBTQ agenda has no relevance to us; rather, the insistence on making this agenda so prominent is one of the factors which makes us increasingly distrustful of the so-called "Left", and unwilling to engage with them in their agenda. This is one reason why we are not rallying behind the Democratic Party - a party which is home to a Governor who derailed the indictment of Darren Wilson, the police officer who murdered Michael Brown. This is the same party who has as a member a man named Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel went on later to become the mayor of Chicago, where he helped the Chicago police department cover up police murders of unarmed African-American teens. So as the Left extends its hand to us once again, we don't trust it. To me, it seems that we must chart our own course. And some of us are gaining the skills and tools to do just that. For the Left as it is currently constituted is also no threat to existing economic or political disparities in power, nor does it threaten existing patterns of oppression which enrich the few at the expense of the many.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
La Batalla Por La Ontogénesis
[And now, at last, the promised Spanish version of one of my recent posts. Muchas gracias, N.R., for the translation! One note: I transcribed his translation from a paper copy he gave me, so if there are any spelling or grammar errors, I take full blame for them... Also, I will try to clean up the formatting in the next week or two. Buen provecho.]
Ontogénesis: “El desarrollo de un organismo individuar,” Wictionary. “El origen y el desarrollo de un organismo,” Wikipedia. “El proceso por el cual cada uno de nosotros personifica la historia de nuestra propia formación.” (Gingrich, Fox, et al, 2002)
Ontogénesis. ¿Un tema interesante, o no? Estoy especialmente sorprendido por la ultima definición citada, ósea ontogénesis como “proceso por el cual cada uno personifica la historia de nuestra propia formación.” Tomando estas definiciones indican que esta historia es una función de nuestro desarrollo como individuos. En otras palabras, el propósito de nuestro desarrollo es originar una cierta clase de historia. ¿Habrá claves de la clase de historia que debemos personificar, y de la meta deseada de nuestro desarrollo?
Antes de darte mi respuesta a esta pregunta, déjame advertirte con tiempo que esto será otro anuncio espiritual manifiesto. Y ahora, miremos a una escritura en particular:
Porque la gracia de Dios que tra salvación a todos los hombres se manifesto,
ensenándonos que, renunciando a la impiedad y a los deseos mundanos,
viviamos en este siglo demplada, y justa, y piamente, esperando aquella esperansa bienaventurada,
y la manifestación gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo,
que se dio a s mismo por nosotros para redimirnos de toda iniquidad, y limpiar para si un pueblo propio, celosa de buenas obras.
– Tito 2:12-14
Considerando las partes de esta escritura, podemos hacer unas observaciones rápidas. Primera, la intención de nuestro creador es que seamos rescatados para no vivir vidas fútiles, caracterizadas por pasiones y adicciones degradantes, y descrontroladas. Segundo, nuestra vidas devén de ser disciplinadas y con propósito; con nuestro ingenio y facultades envueltas completamenta en servir a ese propósito. Tercero, nuestras vidas devén de ser virtualmente hermosas siendo caracterizadas por buenas obras. La palabra “buenas” en Griego es la palabra “Kalos.” De acuerdo a la concordancia de Strong, esta pabra significa “hermosa (Mi énfasis), como una muestra exterior de un buen interior, noble, carácter honorable, dignidad, honrosa, y noble que se hace manifesto.” Entonces nuestras vidas devén de estar llenas de obras hermosas, obras cuya hermosura es una reflexión directa de la bondad en ellas. Y la carta a Tito esta llena de apelaciones a aquellos que se llaman cristianos para que se envuelvan en estas buenas obras, cuyo propósito, entre otras cosas es suplir las necesidades apremiantes (o urgentes) de nuestros semejantes seres hermanos (Tito 3:14)
La escritura indica que esta vida llena de propósito solpo pueda ser experimentada atreves de una transformación que es resultado de una fe genuina en Cristo. Y aun cada ser humano ha experimentado alguna vez un deseo por esta clase de vida, un deseo de cumplir esta clase de ontogénesis. La prueba de esto se puede obetner al preguntar a cualquier niño de 5 o 6 anos que quiere el o ella ser cuando crezca. Al menos que el niño halla sido traumatizado severa y persistentemente, nunca oirás al niño contestar que el o ella quieran ser basura o nada. Los niños de forma natural tiended a querer ser algo hermoso, algo noble, algo bueno cuando crezcan.
Sin embargo, la perversión humana que es el resultado del pecado original a traido como resultado a personas que comúnmente están confundidas acerca de como pueden cumplir su ontogénesis. Tales personas frecuentemente hacen el error de creer que ellos no se pueden levantar al menos que empujen otros hacia abajo, que no preden brillar al menos que apaguen a otros, que no pueden cumplir su deseo de ser hermosas al menos que arruinen y deshumanizar a sus semejantes seres humanos, que no pueden cumplir su ontogénesis al menos que priven a otros de su derecho y habilidad de realizar su ontogénesis.
Esta perversión se puede mirar en el papel ejecutado por el gobierno Británico del siglo diecinueve al proteger y expandir el movimiento del opio en China para enriquecer a la Bretaña y dañar a la sociedad China. (Es interesante notar que los Chinos trtaron de erradicar el mercado del opio cuando vieron el dano des bastante de los efectos de la adicción al opio. También es interesante notar que antes de la invasión en Afganistán por los E.U. en el ano 2002, los gobernante, de ese país habían eliminado el mercado de opio y sin embargo este mercado resurgió después de la invasión.) Otro ejemplo son las leyes puestas en varios estados en los siglos 18th y 19th en los E.U., las cuales hicieron que el ensenar a leer y a escribir a los esclavos Africanos una ofensa criminal. De hecho, mucha gente no sabe esto, pero los estados y los dueños de esclavos trataron de evitar que los esclavos aprendieran de la Biblia, o que fueran evangelizados, o que se convirtieran en Cristianos, temiendo que este conociemiento podria ayudar a los esclavos a afirmar su humanidad en cara de los “dueños” blancos. Estos y otros ejemplos ilustra la perversidad de gentes que tratan de cumplir su ontogénesis oprimiendo a otros, que buscan alcanzar su mas alto propósito convirtiendo a los semejantes humanos en victimas.
Para los oprimidos, entonces, la búsqueda para alcanzar su propia ontogénesis se convierte en el aspecto central de la resistencia sin violencia contra su opresores. Y como los opresores están en el negocio de tratar de prevenir este logro, los oprimidos no pueden esper ayuda alguna de parte de la sociedad opresiva en que viven. Después de todo, el interés de los opresores se cumple mejor al mantener a los oprimidos en una condición de quebrantamiento constante. Entonces, si los oprimidos han de lograr su ontogénesis, tiene que desarrollar la clase de instituciones paralelas, fuera del control de los opresores, por los cuales equipar a los oprimidos para su completo desarrollo como seres humanos. Ya que una ontogénesis cumplida resulta en gente quienes son caracterizados por buenas obras, un componente clave de instituciones paralelas es que tienen que ser edificadas en la edificación de arreglos paralelos para la educación de los oprimidos. Esta educación debe equipar a los oprimidos con las habilidades y herramientas necesarias para buena obras. (Tito 3:14 – “Y aprendan asimismo los nuestros a gobernarse en buenas obras...”)
Ejemplos de instituciones paralelas para la educación incluye la escuela de esclavos ilegales (illegal slave schools) de los Americanos antes de la guerra en el Sur. También incluye las universidades volantes Polacas (Polish “Flying Universities”) que aparecieron durante cuando menos tres periodos en la historia polaca, correspondiente a la partición de Polonia por Prusia, Austra-Hungary y Imperial Rusia del siglo 19th; la ocupación de Polonia por Alemania Nazi on la seguerra Mundial, y la lucha contra el dominio soviético en el medio y fin del siglo 20th.
En los dos primeros casos, los ocupantes invasores de Polonia buscaron deshumanizar a la populación Polaca negándoles (especialmente a las mujeres) acceso a la educación alta. En ambos casos, estas universidades volantes clandestinas fueron instrumentales en edificar y preservar un cuadro de dirigetes intelectuales. Polacos quienes reconstruirían a la sociedad Polaco cuando el tiempo fuera apropiado. (Muchos quizás no saben esta pero Marie Curie, la descubridora de radium fue una gradúate de una universidad volante Polaca.) Ejemplos en la actualidad incluyen el fenómeno creciente del homeschooling entre padres afroamericanos.
Y yo tengo un ejemplo personal, es a saber, el colectivo de tutores al cual pertenezco, el cual visita apartamentos de bajos ingreos tres veces al mes para ensenar matemáticas básicas y ciencia a los niños que viven ahí. Puedo ver que deseperantemente necesitan nuestro servicio cuando le pregunto a un niño de nueve y dies anos cuanto es 8 por 7 y miro a muchos de ellos que empiezan a dibujar ocho círculos para poner siete puntos en los círculos para poder contar los puntos, lo único ue puedo pensar es que las escuelas publicas que estos niños atienden, son culpables del terrible desperdicio del tiempo de estos niños.
La educación de la cual hablo es por tanto no meramente vociacional, sino dar a los estudiantes un conjunto de herramientas para navegar esta temprana etapa de la vida, y proveer en una forma honorable para suplir sus necesidades propias y las necesesidades de otros mediante hermosas buenas obras en cualquier situación que puedan encontrar. Corresponde a los que son oprimidos el tomar responsabilidad de proveerse por si mismos de esta educación.
Cuando una gente oprimida hace un esfuerzo coordinado para realizar su ontogénesis en la manera descrita, devén anticipar una reacción adversa de parte de sus opresores, como fue el caso de los seguidores de Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (También conocido como Bacha Khan). Durante la primera parte del siglo 20, Bacha Khan organizo un grupo grande de Pashtungs para poder educarlos y para mejorar la sociedad. Los Británicos tenían el control imperial de esa región, y ellos resintieron profundamente su trabajo. Por eso, ellos lo arrestaron a el y a su anciano padre en 1919, lo cual fue el principio de una serie de arrestos y enarelamientos. A pesar de la acción de la policía Británica, el pudo organizar un gran ejercito pacífico de Pashtungs dedicados a mejorar la sociedad Afgana.
Por su trabajo el ejercito Británico y la policía cometieron una masacre de cientos de Pashtungs durante una protesta pacifica en 1930. Los Británicos dispararon sus rifles contra los desaramados protestantes pacíficos por mas de tres horas. (Informacion tomada de Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggles, Democratization and Governance in the Middle East, Chapter 8, Maria Stephan, et al.)
Ese incidente, aunque horripilante y tragico, ilustra un punto poderoso. Y es, que mediante la búsqueda de esta clase de ontogénesis – y mediante la búsqueda de esta clase de auto-educación necesaria para vivir la vida de hermosas buenas obras, una gente oprimida puede lanzar una poderosa reprensión sin violencia a sus opresores. Porque las vidas provechosas hermosas y llenas de habilidad y de propósito que son el resultado de esta educación, tienen un poderoso efecto en los opresores, a saber la no deseada diminución de la distancia social entre el opresor y el oprimido, porque el opresor es forzado contra su voluntad por las hermosas obras que ve, a reconocer la humanidad de aquellos que desea oprimir.
Friday, June 2, 2017
How Do You Say "Head Fake" In Mancunian?
I almost titled this post, "How do you say 'Head Fake' in Scouse?" Many may not know this, but British actor Bernard Hill, who played King Theoden in the Lord of the Rings movies, got one of the bigger breaks of his career playing a Scouser unemployed asphalt layer named Yosser Hughes in the British 1980's series The Boys From The Blackstuff. I have never lived in Britain, so I cannot tell the difference between a Mancunian accent and a Scouse accent. However, I did discover that Bernard Hill is actually from Manchester - thus not a Scouser at all. Such is the power of good acting, that a skillful actor is able to so thoroughly disguise his origins and identity in pretending to be someone else. (I remember seeing one other instance of this several years ago, when a coworker foisted a DVD of Secondhand Lions off on me, and insisted that I watch it, which I did. I couldn't really stand the kid in the movie, nor did I particularly like the movie itself, but Michael Caine did a very creditable job of pretending to be Texan. Could'a fooled me...)
Such cases of pretending can be quite entertaining when part of a well-done drama, although they can't save a cheesy plot from annoying the living daylights out of those who are forced to be its audience. As I think of Manchester, and of the recent "terror" attack which took place there, I have to confess that I am annoyed. The trouble to me is that it has all the markings of other attacks which were perpetrated in Europe and the United States over the last several years, characteristics such as the following:
In his book, The Powers That Be, theologian Walter Wink does a good job exposing the myth of redemptive violence and the uses which dictators and autocrats make of this myth in propping up their regimes. If you follow his logic, you can see that George W. Bush was Marduk. Dick Cheney was Marduk. Ronald Reagan was Marduk. Donald Trump is Marduk. (Indeed, Trump is a spectacular Marduk, as he is only good for protecting us from "threats" that don't exist. Other than that, he is worthless as an agent of the common good.) Maybe Theresa May is about to become a Marduk. (In that case, "he" will become "she" for a while.) And Vladimir Putin is Marduk, as he showed in March of this year when he rallied his security forces against the outbreak of...CHAAAOOOOSSSS!!!!!!
The execrable part of this program is that too often, it actually brainwashes ordinary people who are susceptible to national narcissism, as in the case of Germany at present, where in 2016 there were about ten attacks a day against asylum-seekers, or in the case of Portland, Oregon, in the United States, where last Friday, a crazed white supremacist killed two passengers with a knife and seriously injured a third while they were riding a MAX train.
What is the actual nature of the "chaos" of which the Marduks of the Global North are afraid? If we're going to be honest, this "chaos" is nothing more than the loss of white supremacy and global domination, and the emergence of a world in which one nation cannot bully or unilaterally impose its will on other nations. It is a world in which you can't get anywhere without taking your turn, saying "Please," or "Thank you." It is also a world populated by many, many really neat, decent people - even though they are not of European descent! It is a world in which nations that formerly dominated the world must acknowledge these non-European people as people, as fellow human beings. It is a world in which national narcissism simply won't fly, but will instead lead to a moment in which the leaders of narcissistic nations are forced to look at each other and say, "You arrogant coyote, you've killed us!" Britain is having such a moment just now. For narcissists always miscalculate. And the outworkings of damnation always find those who have made themselves damnable. "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Such cases of pretending can be quite entertaining when part of a well-done drama, although they can't save a cheesy plot from annoying the living daylights out of those who are forced to be its audience. As I think of Manchester, and of the recent "terror" attack which took place there, I have to confess that I am annoyed. The trouble to me is that it has all the markings of other attacks which were perpetrated in Europe and the United States over the last several years, characteristics such as the following:
- The attacks were supposedly perpetrated by some vague, shadowy "Islamic State" bent on imposing Muslim rule throughout the world;
- The attacks did not materially degrade the military capabilities of the nations where they took place;
- The attacks had an effect exactly opposite the supposed aims of the supposed perpetrators. The actual effect of the attacks was to provide an excuse to inflame anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant (especially anti-dark-skinned-immigrant) sentiment in the nations where they took place, and to provide a justification for the nations of the Global North to attack Muslim and Arab nations where there were large concentrations of mineral resources.
- The alleged perpetrators of the attacks all wound up conveniently very dead, and thus unable to stand trial in pubic.
- After each attack, critical thinkers began to expose holes and inconsistencies in the official narrative put forward by government authorities. One example of this includes the fact that after a supposed Islamic jihadist supposedly drove a truck into a crowd of people in France last year, French anti-terror police asked the city in which the attack occurred to destroy all video surveillance footage of the attack. (See this also. And, oh, by the way, did you know that remotely driven trucks have existed for years?) If the police were really interested in getting to the bottom of this attack, why destroy video footage that could provide valuable evidence? Another example is the presence of faked passports among the dead in the 2015 Paris terror attack. Now in the wake of Manchester, an analyst and critical thinker is again raising questions. And even some of his potential enemies have begun to listen.
In his book, The Powers That Be, theologian Walter Wink does a good job exposing the myth of redemptive violence and the uses which dictators and autocrats make of this myth in propping up their regimes. If you follow his logic, you can see that George W. Bush was Marduk. Dick Cheney was Marduk. Ronald Reagan was Marduk. Donald Trump is Marduk. (Indeed, Trump is a spectacular Marduk, as he is only good for protecting us from "threats" that don't exist. Other than that, he is worthless as an agent of the common good.) Maybe Theresa May is about to become a Marduk. (In that case, "he" will become "she" for a while.) And Vladimir Putin is Marduk, as he showed in March of this year when he rallied his security forces against the outbreak of...CHAAAOOOOSSSS!!!!!!
The execrable part of this program is that too often, it actually brainwashes ordinary people who are susceptible to national narcissism, as in the case of Germany at present, where in 2016 there were about ten attacks a day against asylum-seekers, or in the case of Portland, Oregon, in the United States, where last Friday, a crazed white supremacist killed two passengers with a knife and seriously injured a third while they were riding a MAX train.
What is the actual nature of the "chaos" of which the Marduks of the Global North are afraid? If we're going to be honest, this "chaos" is nothing more than the loss of white supremacy and global domination, and the emergence of a world in which one nation cannot bully or unilaterally impose its will on other nations. It is a world in which you can't get anywhere without taking your turn, saying "Please," or "Thank you." It is also a world populated by many, many really neat, decent people - even though they are not of European descent! It is a world in which nations that formerly dominated the world must acknowledge these non-European people as people, as fellow human beings. It is a world in which national narcissism simply won't fly, but will instead lead to a moment in which the leaders of narcissistic nations are forced to look at each other and say, "You arrogant coyote, you've killed us!" Britain is having such a moment just now. For narcissists always miscalculate. And the outworkings of damnation always find those who have made themselves damnable. "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Saturday, May 27, 2017
So...Who's the Dangerous One Again?
I have a couple of posts in the embryonic state, which I hope to develop and publish within the next few weeks. But something happened that demands a response. At around 4:30 yesterday afternoon, a male white supremacist began screaming racist and anti-Muslim insults at two young women on a MAX train in Portland, Oregon. I think it was probably the same line that I often rode home from work at around that time for many weekdays over the last several years. When some male passengers tried to calm this man down and de-escalate his behavior, he viciously attacked them with a knife, killing two of them and wounding a third. Then he fled the train.
I wonder what was going through the accursed head of Jeremy Joseph Christian when he started his screaming and shouting, and when he began to kill. Did he think he was being some kind of hero? Was this his way of trying to get one last shot of narcissistic glory to compensate for a life wasted as a felon and a loser? Some prominent politicians and community leaders have called on Donald Trump to publicly condemn the bigotry embodied in Jeremy Joseph Christian, but if I were them, I wouldn't hold my breath, because Trump, like Jeremy, is a loser and a felon who is trying to get one last shot of narcissistic glory before being thrown into an incinerator. Trump and Jeremy, moreover, are symptoms of a larger national and ethnic narcissism which seems to have permanently taken hold of a certain sector of the American public - a sector which can easily be egged on to re-enact the myth of redemptive violence (see this also) at the slightest provocation because the enactment of this myth enables them to project the shame of their own lives onto convenient targets, even if the choosing of those targets makes no sense, as was the case with Pizzagate. This is the sector which doesn't believe it actually exists unless it can prove its existence by terrorizing people who don't belong to it. But it is inescapably - bit by bit - losing its ability to terrorize. For its members, the future contains only a yawning abyss, because this sector is good for nothing.
I am a Christian and not a Muslim. But when Muslims are actively performing deeds of reconciliation and healing in a nation and society that is being polarized and torn apart by knuckleheads for the benefit of its wealthiest members, what does that say about America as a "Christian" nation? Only that "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
I wonder what was going through the accursed head of Jeremy Joseph Christian when he started his screaming and shouting, and when he began to kill. Did he think he was being some kind of hero? Was this his way of trying to get one last shot of narcissistic glory to compensate for a life wasted as a felon and a loser? Some prominent politicians and community leaders have called on Donald Trump to publicly condemn the bigotry embodied in Jeremy Joseph Christian, but if I were them, I wouldn't hold my breath, because Trump, like Jeremy, is a loser and a felon who is trying to get one last shot of narcissistic glory before being thrown into an incinerator. Trump and Jeremy, moreover, are symptoms of a larger national and ethnic narcissism which seems to have permanently taken hold of a certain sector of the American public - a sector which can easily be egged on to re-enact the myth of redemptive violence (see this also) at the slightest provocation because the enactment of this myth enables them to project the shame of their own lives onto convenient targets, even if the choosing of those targets makes no sense, as was the case with Pizzagate. This is the sector which doesn't believe it actually exists unless it can prove its existence by terrorizing people who don't belong to it. But it is inescapably - bit by bit - losing its ability to terrorize. For its members, the future contains only a yawning abyss, because this sector is good for nothing.
I am a Christian and not a Muslim. But when Muslims are actively performing deeds of reconciliation and healing in a nation and society that is being polarized and torn apart by knuckleheads for the benefit of its wealthiest members, what does that say about America as a "Christian" nation? Only that "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Touching The Oppressor's Wound
A person who believes in a world created and ruled by an all-powerful, utterly moral Being must, sooner or later, also recognize that the world which this Being has created is moral on a very deep level. This means that the actions - the choices - of us creatures have consequences. The consequences are not just moral consequences, but social, relational and even physical, as declared in such succinct Scriptures as, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap," and, "The wages of sin is death."
But when a person makes such an assertion in open company, he is likely to be accused of easy, careless, useless moralizing, especially by people who argue that moral concerns are irrelevant, and that only might makes right. "Look," they say, "we see people getting away with robbery and murder all the time, and nothing bad happens to them! The only thing that matters in life is who has the most strength, who can wield the most force, who is cleverest."
Which side is correct? The answer depends on the evidence a person uses to answer the question. Over very short time scales, it often appears that those who say that might makes right are correct, for over very short time scales it appears that rich and powerful people really are able to get away with robbery and murder without suffering any penalty. However, the picture changes in interesting ways as the time scale of study gets longer. So we find, in books like Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, that there is a large body of evidence that confirms that people who struggle against oppression by nonviolent, non-destructive means have a much greater chance of neutralizing their oppressor than people who adopt the destructive means of their oppressors to wage conflict. On a certain level, this is a vindication of all of the New Testament teaching of nonviolence as the means of confronting a violent society. Let the data speak.
But what about the morality of the oppressor - and specifically, what about the morality of the oppressive actions of the oppressor? Is it true that oppression is an evil act? Is it also true that oppressors are evil? That depends, I guess, on who you ask. However, based on the Source I consult, oppression and oppressors are both evil. (See, for instance, Isaiah 58, Ezekiel 22, Luke 16, and James 5:1-6. You might also check out this excellent poem by Dave Barnhart. Look at the Scripture references at the bottom.)
So if the Good Book is correct in condemning both oppressors and their oppression, I guess that means that the Scripture which says "The wages of sin is death" is being fulfilled in their case, isn't it? I mean, we should be able to see evidence that they are reaping damaging consequences, shouldn't we? There is indeed compelling evidence to confirm these assertions. But you have to know where to look. A good initial proposition or hypothesis helps in the search, and such a hypothesis can be found in Paolo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where he describes the dehumanization that occurs in the oppressor as a result of his actions of dehumanizing those he seeks to oppress. (You can read the first chapter of his book here.) In other words, a person who chooses to be an oppressor damages both his victim and himself by his oppression.
What evidence do we have that this assertion is true? The evidence can be found anecdotally concerning slave-owners in the antebellum South, of whom historian Albert Murray is reported to have said that their per capita suicide rate was much higher than that of the slaves they owned. It can also be found in the suicide rate of soldiers and others in Nazi Germany during World War Two.
However, there is abundant modern statistical evidence to document the self-destructiveness which characterizes many classes of wielders of power in the present-day industrial world. This is seen in the recent high suicide rates among the military personnel of certain countries. (For instance, see this and this.) But it is also seen in the high suicide rates among other wielders of power, such as middle managers in business. By far, the most noticeable example of suicide among those who wield power is the suicide rate among police and corrections officers. (One study found that most corrections officers do not live to see their 59th birthday.) The case of corrections officers is especially interesting, given the large number of prisoner abuse cases which have been in the news over the last several years. (See this for instance.)
But the risk of suicide is not the only damage done to those who wield power - especially physically violent, destructive power - as agents of oppression. There is also the slow damage wrought by substance abuse and the difficulties in family relationships caused by a job which requires a person to act violently or inhumanely toward some of his fellow human beings for 40 hours a week. People who work such jobs all too frequently find that they cannot just switch off their aggression when they come home from work. When that aggression is released outside of its intended environment, it has consequences, as I described in an earlier post.
We see then that wielding dehumanizing power or violence against powerless people really does damage the oppressor. How then does the oppressor become damaged by the oppression he commits against the oppressed? What is the exact mechanism of this damage? For, as Paolo Freire says, "As the oppressors dehumanize others and violate their rights, they themselves also become dehumanized." How does this process work itself out? For if we can create a model of the process of dehumanization, we can track the process of dehumanization as it works itself out in individual members of an oppressor occupational class. Armed with this knowledge, we who are among the oppressed can begin to describe the process of dehumanization to our oppressors, providing the oppressors with the warning signs that show that process working itself out in our oppressors. We now know something of the processes which disciplined nonviolent resisters activate in the agents of oppression who oppose them. We should also work on developing a strong theoretical model of the self-destructive processes activated by the act of oppression in those who choose to oppress others.
This theoretical framework would form the basis for warning the oppressor that his oppression is killing him as well as hurting those whom he seeks to oppress. It would be rather like the empirical observations of deaths in heavy smokers which led to the theoretical development and research which formed the foundation for the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's report on smoking as a cause of death. Such theory, backed up by research, would also be the foundation of a powerful appeal to the oppressor to give up his oppression - just as the Surgeon General's report was the basis of powerful appeals to Americans to give up smoking. And such theory and research would serve as a foundation for making a personal connection with the secondary victims of the oppressor - such as the spouses and children who suffer domestic violence and the secondary effects of substance abuse resulting from the jobs held by the oppressors to whom they are married.
But when a person makes such an assertion in open company, he is likely to be accused of easy, careless, useless moralizing, especially by people who argue that moral concerns are irrelevant, and that only might makes right. "Look," they say, "we see people getting away with robbery and murder all the time, and nothing bad happens to them! The only thing that matters in life is who has the most strength, who can wield the most force, who is cleverest."
Which side is correct? The answer depends on the evidence a person uses to answer the question. Over very short time scales, it often appears that those who say that might makes right are correct, for over very short time scales it appears that rich and powerful people really are able to get away with robbery and murder without suffering any penalty. However, the picture changes in interesting ways as the time scale of study gets longer. So we find, in books like Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, that there is a large body of evidence that confirms that people who struggle against oppression by nonviolent, non-destructive means have a much greater chance of neutralizing their oppressor than people who adopt the destructive means of their oppressors to wage conflict. On a certain level, this is a vindication of all of the New Testament teaching of nonviolence as the means of confronting a violent society. Let the data speak.
But what about the morality of the oppressor - and specifically, what about the morality of the oppressive actions of the oppressor? Is it true that oppression is an evil act? Is it also true that oppressors are evil? That depends, I guess, on who you ask. However, based on the Source I consult, oppression and oppressors are both evil. (See, for instance, Isaiah 58, Ezekiel 22, Luke 16, and James 5:1-6. You might also check out this excellent poem by Dave Barnhart. Look at the Scripture references at the bottom.)
So if the Good Book is correct in condemning both oppressors and their oppression, I guess that means that the Scripture which says "The wages of sin is death" is being fulfilled in their case, isn't it? I mean, we should be able to see evidence that they are reaping damaging consequences, shouldn't we? There is indeed compelling evidence to confirm these assertions. But you have to know where to look. A good initial proposition or hypothesis helps in the search, and such a hypothesis can be found in Paolo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where he describes the dehumanization that occurs in the oppressor as a result of his actions of dehumanizing those he seeks to oppress. (You can read the first chapter of his book here.) In other words, a person who chooses to be an oppressor damages both his victim and himself by his oppression.
What evidence do we have that this assertion is true? The evidence can be found anecdotally concerning slave-owners in the antebellum South, of whom historian Albert Murray is reported to have said that their per capita suicide rate was much higher than that of the slaves they owned. It can also be found in the suicide rate of soldiers and others in Nazi Germany during World War Two.
However, there is abundant modern statistical evidence to document the self-destructiveness which characterizes many classes of wielders of power in the present-day industrial world. This is seen in the recent high suicide rates among the military personnel of certain countries. (For instance, see this and this.) But it is also seen in the high suicide rates among other wielders of power, such as middle managers in business. By far, the most noticeable example of suicide among those who wield power is the suicide rate among police and corrections officers. (One study found that most corrections officers do not live to see their 59th birthday.) The case of corrections officers is especially interesting, given the large number of prisoner abuse cases which have been in the news over the last several years. (See this for instance.)
But the risk of suicide is not the only damage done to those who wield power - especially physically violent, destructive power - as agents of oppression. There is also the slow damage wrought by substance abuse and the difficulties in family relationships caused by a job which requires a person to act violently or inhumanely toward some of his fellow human beings for 40 hours a week. People who work such jobs all too frequently find that they cannot just switch off their aggression when they come home from work. When that aggression is released outside of its intended environment, it has consequences, as I described in an earlier post.
We see then that wielding dehumanizing power or violence against powerless people really does damage the oppressor. How then does the oppressor become damaged by the oppression he commits against the oppressed? What is the exact mechanism of this damage? For, as Paolo Freire says, "As the oppressors dehumanize others and violate their rights, they themselves also become dehumanized." How does this process work itself out? For if we can create a model of the process of dehumanization, we can track the process of dehumanization as it works itself out in individual members of an oppressor occupational class. Armed with this knowledge, we who are among the oppressed can begin to describe the process of dehumanization to our oppressors, providing the oppressors with the warning signs that show that process working itself out in our oppressors. We now know something of the processes which disciplined nonviolent resisters activate in the agents of oppression who oppose them. We should also work on developing a strong theoretical model of the self-destructive processes activated by the act of oppression in those who choose to oppress others.
This theoretical framework would form the basis for warning the oppressor that his oppression is killing him as well as hurting those whom he seeks to oppress. It would be rather like the empirical observations of deaths in heavy smokers which led to the theoretical development and research which formed the foundation for the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's report on smoking as a cause of death. Such theory, backed up by research, would also be the foundation of a powerful appeal to the oppressor to give up his oppression - just as the Surgeon General's report was the basis of powerful appeals to Americans to give up smoking. And such theory and research would serve as a foundation for making a personal connection with the secondary victims of the oppressor - such as the spouses and children who suffer domestic violence and the secondary effects of substance abuse resulting from the jobs held by the oppressors to whom they are married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)