Henry Louis Gates, Jr. - Back in Black

The first thing that came to mind was Dave Chappelle's skit featuring his drug dealing alter ego, Tron. Tron switches places with a white male corporate type who is roughed up and framed by the cops, while Tron is given a courteous and apologetic call and asked when it would be convenient to turn himself in.

Chappelle's incisive wit in this hypothetical exploration of race relations in America, is what convinced me that this was a case of racial profiling. If not for the the fact that a white Harvard professor with a very high national profile would never have been treated in this way, I could dismiss it as an over reaction on the part of Gates. But Gates, it turns out, is black and I think he was reminded of that in a most unpleasant way.

I don't blame Gate's white female  neighbour, she was looking out for his property after all, but I do wonder how long they were neighbours and why she couldn't figure out that is was Gates himself. I'm not advancing a conspiracy theory, just wondering again if she would have called the police had it been a white man of the same age  (apparently 58 years old). 58 year old men of any race aren't known for burglary.

That there is now a black American president adds weight to the issue and, if handled accordingly, could pull Obama's tongue on the simmering problems of racial equality, discrimination, segregation and prejudice. The recently featured segregated school proms not only revealed the still living spectre of racism in the US, but begs one to question what else is done in the name of prejudice that has gone unreported, and yet accepted in both black and white communities.

The real issue with both Gate's arrest and the segregated proms is that they are black problems - or blacks are the ones who have the grouse. Whites are merely spectators, busy being human, while blacks are trying to ascend the evolutionary ladder to humanity, a feat ever more possible with the ascent of Obama. To be sure, all men are equal, but reality offers another version of the truth with black people having had to justify their presence in a (white) man's world for generations. This is why many white folks can't comprehend Gate's stance.

Richard Dyer, in his book White, noted that whites very rarely ever acknowledge the implication that non-whites, in the Western World, are raced while whites are just human. This is played out in the media everyday from the many contemporary white blockbuster heroes (while blacks have only Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Denzel Washington - Asian and Hispanic stars? Even  fewer), to references to 'black on black' violence and the fact that mainstream media is primarily white and niche media is inevitably ethnic or non-white - as if white isn't an ethnicity. Too often do minority characters have to justify their presence through their ethnicity. You get the point? Though whiteness is the standard it is essentially an invisible standard usually unmentioned and under-acknowledged by the white community, if anything excused as 'victim mentality' acted out in the non-white community.

Like these few thoughts Gate's arrest has the potential to take us far and wide within the issue of race and culture, and surely many will try to forward their own agenda on the springboard of this event. But we all know that legislation can't change mens hearts though it can guide their actions, and action may be more necessary than anything else right now. But the biggest concern is not what Obama is going to say or do - he will either be a disappointment to the black community or a black man with a bone to pick to the white community - but what the response will be within the white communities across America, because of the many invisible discriminatory standards that still obtain in a nation that is supposedly free, democratic and equal.

The time is fast approaching when it must be acknowledged that we have issues not just them, and working out these problems is not a gesture of good faith but an act of moral responsibility.

NOTE: It should be noted that many white commentators in the US media have sided with Gates and stated they believe if he were white the situation would have played out differently. Indeed, some have said if they were in his position an arrest would not have been made.

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com

This interesting - pretty topical and cutting edge I think.

What do you say?

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com.

'By the way, sorry about the slavery...now watch this shot': On Apologies For Slavery

The US senate offered apologies for slavery and Jim Crow laws recently, following the Church of England and Tony Blair's administration, who made their apologies some 3 years ago.

So what does this largely symbolic gesture accomplish? Well, practically speaking - nothing. And even though an  apology can provide some cultural healing, the very low key event greeted with marginal media coverage suggests not many people will benefit from the 'healing'. Also, the fact that the resolution comes with a disclaimer that prevents any claim against the United States takes the teeth and sincerity out of the apology.

Cold Case

One can't help but feel, with the considerations made to Native American Indians and Jews after the Holocaust, plus the pursuit of Nazi fugitives and outlawing of Holocaust denial (indeed the Holocaust is a mandatory aspect of school curricula in Germany) , African Americans (and the rest of the African Diaspora) have gotten a raw deal...again. Some say that enslaved Africans and their descendants weren't freed but 'let go', true when you are freed to a life of poverty, segregation and debt. Even though there is no difficulty in connecting the path of US race relations (indeed Global race relations) and the brutal history of segregation and exploitation, no individual, corporation or Government has ever faced justice for one of the most public and prolonged crimes in the last several hundred years.

Beyond race relations, the very prosperity of today's First World is firmly founded on its exploitation of the Developing World (that would encompass slavery and colonisation). In fact, both are products of each other with the exploitation far from over, only morphing into ongoing economic colonisation and 'economic apartheid', to borrow a term from Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine, Penguin 2007). Even though it's been 200 years since the abolition of the slave trade, the fall-out is very much evident in countries like Haiti and many African nations that have never truly become viable states. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the present instability in many former colonies is a direct result of their colonial and slave history. In some cases, even while Governments may be run by Black Africans, the money and resources still lie in the hands of the former colonials and Caucasian Africans. Klein finds evidence for this in her damning expose on 'disaster capitalism', The Shock Doctrine, describing a South Africa that moved from the overt institutional racism of Apartheid to the covert retention of the Country's money in the hands of the former 'minority masters'. Haiti, one could argue, has been paying for its insolence in freeing itself from slavery beginning with a levy 150 million francs in 1825, in exchange for recognition as a sovereign nation by the French. To be sure, the French left the fledging nation with little or no resources.

But slavery has been rendered a cold case in the history of crimes against humanity, and the recent apologies confirm this. Some argue that the passage of time and generations has left no smoking gun, no immediate victim and no red-handed perpetrator, hence seeking any sort of justice is pointless. Who would be held accountable? Who would the plaintiff be? What would be the just award for the crime? Good questions that all have very reasonable though inconvenient answers.

The Status Quo

That the rules are made by the rulers has always been the case, but to be fair  many former colonies have been independent long enough (some not so long at all) to be guilty of self-inflicted wounds, both economic and social. If there is to be some restitution for slavery and colonisation this should be taken into consideration. But we aren't speaking about the sins of the victims at this this stage, and the status quo that allows the crimes of the past to go unchallenged is what allows the crimes of the present to go unchallenged. Deal with the status quo and the sins of the past and present can be faced with some modicum of justice and equanimity. What are the crimes of the present? Continued plundering of natural resources of the Developing World (acquired in large part through colonisation) by First World corporations (with the assistance of governments on either side - especially in Africa and South America), onerous IMF and World Bank conditions and First World agricultural subsidies  that undercut local producers and economies. The consequences of these tactics are far reaching and include anything from unemployment and inflation to low exploitative wages and deforestation. Not only are economies destroyed but also local culture and social structure, according to Jeremy Seabrook's Consuming Cultures (New Internationalist, 2004).

That some Governments and leaders of plaintiff communities are complicit in this kind of 'legalised' exploitation is understood, but this doesn't absolve the accused, only impugns others. And the power of scarcity to force persons into 'selling out' shouldn't be underestimated. But that sounds like victim/slave mentality; the attitude that someone else is responsible for the failings of now autonomous groups and communities. To be sure if said communities find prosperity it will be in spite of the actions of the accused and indeed an issue of overcoming the actions of the accused rather than making use of assistance provided by the same. Still commendable if it can be done (and progress if very evident in the African American community) but doesn't mean that there aren't actual victims. Using the logic applied to the impunity surrounding slavery and colonisation, any crime  can be overlooked given enough time and neglect. Any group living in the wake of injustice can be labelled lazy blame shifters when they become the victims 'once-removed'. But this is the cheapest way out for the accused. It costs them nothing to apologise. And cost is very important because in today's consumerist/capitalist world economy, money is the first love of the body politic (ok, always has been). Wars are invented for it, blood is shed to to keep it - nothing, it seems can keep a nation of means away from its money - and other nations money.

It follows then that the US should protect its Beloved from being 'plundered' by folks who may have a right to it. But money is the unimaginative approach to justice, albeit that many find it to the most desirable. When it comes to slavery it's not just one state accountable to another state or community, but corporations are also beholden - maybe more so. Either way, tracking the profit shouldn't be that hard and finding ways to pay for the crime could be spread across methods including debt cancellation, relinquishing of resources, provision of resources without condition, and so on. The truth, however, is that the price of justice in this case is just too high to pay, partly because the crime is still in progress (and so for centuries) and the profundity of the crime warrants an exceptionally heavy sentence.

Promising Compromise

So what's the next most reasonable step? It can only be that the concerned former perpetrators and victims take the possibility of justice for damage caused by colonisation and slavery seriously. That might mean finally including the slave trade in British secondary education curricula, for example, and an effort to genuinely support affected nations and communities in sustainable ways - not handouts, but leg ups. I don't claim to have the knowledge or expertise to provide all the answers - but I'm sure that if those with the know-how actually apply themselves to the task - something could be done. A lot of expense, manpower, technology and brainpower go into war, exploitation, profit-seeking and downright criminality. Perhaps some of that ingenuity, creativity and energy can be put in the direction of healing. Apologies are decent gestures but words mean little when they weren't the problem in the first place.

EDIT: The Madoff sentencing made waves throughout the media with a hefty 150 years to his name. This blog entitled 'When Sorry Isn't Good Enough' makes a strong statement: money matters most. Mind you, the effects of Madoff's greed are real and go beyond a simple loss of cash, but there in the background is a lesson. Swift justice is meet here and it should be. But one wonders why, with situations like Katrina, Iraq war crimes and yes, slavery, the justice is either very slow or non-existent. What really matters more, human lives or dollar signs?

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

Senate Apologizes For Slavery : NPR

Senate Apologizes For Slavery

via Senate Apologizes For Slavery : NPR.

The UK did something similar a few years back with Tony Blair issuing a statement of 'sorrow' for slavery and the Church of England offering a similar sentiment.

What do you think: To little too late too much for nothing? Many think slavery is of no consequence today, others think it is impunity at its very height.

Kansas Abortion Doctor Slain; Suspect In Custody : NPR

Kansas Abortion Doctor Slain; Suspect In Custody : NPR.

Firstly condolences to family, friends & fellow church members. It is a real tragedy.

We do not yet know who killed this man or why, but anti-abortion extermists have been blamed. This tragedy can foment more anger and animosity between the factions on either side of the abortion debate.

Tragedy is often a spring board for other agendas (for even this discussion). I wonder if it's worth speculating about all this without knowing the motive behind Tiller's killing? Perhaps we should lay off the wild theories until the crime is solved?

What do you think?

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR.

An interesting experiment with somewhat suprising results.

5ive Things I Don't Get

You might be thinking 'who are you and why would I care about what you don't get?' Good question for which I don't have a good answer, except to say you might agree and hence find commiseration, or you might disagree vehemently and have someone to vent at. Either way, you're welcome.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Hundreds regret their deodorant oversight"][/caption]

1. CARNIVAL. I know there are many self-proclaimed 'Carnival Te Te's' out there - no disrespect. If you enjoy it then have a good 'un. But I just don't see the fun in tromping half-naked in public in very close proximity to sweaty strangers (hepatitis comes to mind) in the boiling hot sun from one point to another. It's like the movement of refugees but with bottled spring water, sparkly pants & music - very repetitive music to which only one dance move can be done i.e. chip an' wine. Furthermore - I would have to pay to do this! I'm sorry, but if I was to participate in a carnival roadmarch someone would have to pay me!

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="135" caption="Dress Shoe/Flipper combo?"][/caption]

2.POINTY MEN'S SHOES. They're in style and they're pointy (Winkle Pickers I understand they are called), sometimes with a little upturned toe to complete the Rumpelstilskinian look. But why would any normal footed male want to cram his feet into shoes that taper to a point merely milimeters across? Women apparently loooooove this stuff - but guys? Where is your sense of....common sense? If you wanted to make shish kebab with the tip of your shoe then fine. But surely getting from point A to point B would either be exceptionally painful or terribly embarrasing - I'm almost certain these shoes are a danger to small scurrying animals.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="144" caption="Television for masochists"][/caption]

3.LIFETIME TV. Ok, every single story is about a woman who 'has to learn to love again' after being wronged by some jerk of a man. She spends the next 60 minutes crying and shouting at her 'estranged daughter', then meets a wonderful man who helps her to 'learn to love again'. And the film titles! Anything from 'The Deserted Wife' to 'I Lost my Daughter to a Man I Don't Trust' One doesn't have to guess the plot. Sigh. Why? Why all the depression and man-hating? Indeed, why all the misogyny? Lifetime can't be good for people struggling with depression and very likely contributes to the number of those who do.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="144" caption="Every way is the right way. Wrong!"][/caption]

4.MORAL RELATIVISM. The idea that morality is totally subjective, up to each individual to decide and there is no such thing as a 'sin'/wrongness just doesn't make sense. This would mean that the Holocaust & the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade have no wrongness whatsover - indeed nothing would be wrong including pedophilia or even cheating on one's spouse. Jews, Africans, parents & children and spouses are likely to have a few feelings about the morality of the aforementioned list. Moral relativism suggests that nothing is wrong with everything - make sense? No, I don't think so either.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="126" caption="Distilled essence of nastiness"][/caption]

5.MARMITE. YUUUUUUCK! If you don't know, you're one of the blessed. Nuff said.

I myself will add to this list but if there are things you 'don't get' please feel free to add em. For example - you may 'not get' people who don't get Carnival - touche.