Another selection from Langston Hughes:
To Certain "Brothers"
You sicken me with lies,
With truthful lies.
And with your pious faces.
And your wide, out-stretched,
mock-welcome, Christian hands.
While underneath
Is dirt and ugliness,
And rottening hearts,
And wild hyenas howling
In your soul's waste lands.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
In Commemoration Speech, Did Obama Serve the Cause of Justice, or Myth?
I wasn't sure what to make of President Obama's speech yesterday at the commemoration of the March on Washington. Parts of it were forthright about the need for further action to combat injustice (and the President actually used that word). And he talked about the need to defeat the (conveniently unnamed) defenders of such injustice. I don't know enough about presidential rhetoric, and perhaps I'm just conditioned by the Bush years, but I was starting to think sitting Presidents don't talk like this.
But then Obama pivoted back to this:
After suffering a series of severe blows, White regrouped and defeated the civil rights movement. Yet the discourse of Whites ever since has not acknowledged their partial victory. There is, rather, a pervasive set of mental and rhetorical frameworks built around blaming Blacks for their failure to live up to "the Dream," as if Whites have not been standing in their way the whole time. President Obama is aiding and abetting those frameworks.
Perhaps he should have called for specific policies, invoking King's name, urging congress to pass immigration reform in pursuit of King's Dream. Pass a jobs bill in pursuit of King's dream. Pass criminal justice reform in pursuit of King's Dream. Denounce the racist tea party, in honor of King. I don't know. Maybe all hell would break loose if he did that. But I think it would be a good thing if King became more controversial again. King would be appalled by the modern Republican Party. He would denounce it in moral, biblical terms. I think we should get that out in the open and let people draw their own conclusions.
But then Obama pivoted back to this:
And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots. Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support -- as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.I'm never sure what to make of this coming from Obama. Is it part of his habitual "on the one hand, on the other hand" framing of every issue? Is it what he feels he has to say as the President of all Americans? Or is it, deep down, what he believes? I'm not here to say that there is no truth at all to this paragraph (though Ta-Nehisi Coates, in a must read scathing review, says as much) but I do argue that this rhetoric is received in a certain social and cultural context that renders it, in its essence, untrue.
After suffering a series of severe blows, White regrouped and defeated the civil rights movement. Yet the discourse of Whites ever since has not acknowledged their partial victory. There is, rather, a pervasive set of mental and rhetorical frameworks built around blaming Blacks for their failure to live up to "the Dream," as if Whites have not been standing in their way the whole time. President Obama is aiding and abetting those frameworks.
Perhaps he should have called for specific policies, invoking King's name, urging congress to pass immigration reform in pursuit of King's Dream. Pass a jobs bill in pursuit of King's dream. Pass criminal justice reform in pursuit of King's Dream. Denounce the racist tea party, in honor of King. I don't know. Maybe all hell would break loose if he did that. But I think it would be a good thing if King became more controversial again. King would be appalled by the modern Republican Party. He would denounce it in moral, biblical terms. I think we should get that out in the open and let people draw their own conclusions.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Moral Authority Personified
John Lewis, at yesterday's march on Washington.
It wasn't as large as the original, but it was a big crowd. While these moral giants walk among us, the fake debates about voter "fraud" continue and states like North Carolina pass legislation in the proud American tradition of White tyranny. Those of us on the right side of this fight ought not grant to our opponents the dignity they seek. They don't care about Martin Luther King or anything he stood for, and they need to be called out on it. They are self-deceived. Many of them sincerely believe they agree with the civil rights movement and King's legacy, even as they fight against it.
They claim him as their own even as they despise his living associates. Such is the power of myth. I have never heard a prominent conservative figure criticize Martin Luther King in recent years. Yet John Lewis is widely disparaged. Because of the nature of self-deception, let's be clear about who we're talking about.
We're talking about people who find themselves agreeing with the racial commentary they hear on Fox news. People who think the Republican Party takes a good position on racial issues. People who think talk radio has something worthwhile to say about race. People who read right-wing sites like the Blaze or Breitbart or National Review or, heck, even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and agree with the racial opinions espoused there.
Leave aside what is right or wrong. We're talking about the appropriation of moral authority. All of these outlets are opposed to the civil rights movement, opposed to what King stood for, opposed to one of the only living moral giants of American history, John Lewis. All I ask is that they--and you if you agree with them--stop claiming what is not theirs. Instead of pretending that they agree with what the civil rights movement stood for, these groups need to explain why they, as the intellectual descendants of mid-twentieth century White supremacists, came to have the correct moral view on these issues. And if the White supremacist tradition is the correct moral view, why do they feel the need to claim agreement with the opposing side?
John Stennis, the late segregationist senator I'm studying, would be proud. The precepts of the strategic campaign he and others waged are now so embedded in the fabric of national myth that millions of people who sincerely deplore racism now pursue and support racist policies. I know it is easy to ascribe bad motives to our opponents, but I think the majority of them are genuinely unaware of what they're doing. But then, that's no excuse. After all, most segregationists sincerely believed they had the best interests of Blacks at heart.
It wasn't as large as the original, but it was a big crowd. While these moral giants walk among us, the fake debates about voter "fraud" continue and states like North Carolina pass legislation in the proud American tradition of White tyranny. Those of us on the right side of this fight ought not grant to our opponents the dignity they seek. They don't care about Martin Luther King or anything he stood for, and they need to be called out on it. They are self-deceived. Many of them sincerely believe they agree with the civil rights movement and King's legacy, even as they fight against it.
They claim him as their own even as they despise his living associates. Such is the power of myth. I have never heard a prominent conservative figure criticize Martin Luther King in recent years. Yet John Lewis is widely disparaged. Because of the nature of self-deception, let's be clear about who we're talking about.
We're talking about people who find themselves agreeing with the racial commentary they hear on Fox news. People who think the Republican Party takes a good position on racial issues. People who think talk radio has something worthwhile to say about race. People who read right-wing sites like the Blaze or Breitbart or National Review or, heck, even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and agree with the racial opinions espoused there.
Leave aside what is right or wrong. We're talking about the appropriation of moral authority. All of these outlets are opposed to the civil rights movement, opposed to what King stood for, opposed to one of the only living moral giants of American history, John Lewis. All I ask is that they--and you if you agree with them--stop claiming what is not theirs. Instead of pretending that they agree with what the civil rights movement stood for, these groups need to explain why they, as the intellectual descendants of mid-twentieth century White supremacists, came to have the correct moral view on these issues. And if the White supremacist tradition is the correct moral view, why do they feel the need to claim agreement with the opposing side?
John Stennis, the late segregationist senator I'm studying, would be proud. The precepts of the strategic campaign he and others waged are now so embedded in the fabric of national myth that millions of people who sincerely deplore racism now pursue and support racist policies. I know it is easy to ascribe bad motives to our opponents, but I think the majority of them are genuinely unaware of what they're doing. But then, that's no excuse. After all, most segregationists sincerely believed they had the best interests of Blacks at heart.
Thoughts for Sunday
Several weeks ago I read that the Presbyterian Church (USA) decided to drop the modern hymn "In Christ Alone" from its hymnal. The offending line was this: "Till on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." The hymnal committee asked the writers if they could change it to "Till on the cross, as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified." The writers said no.
I realize that this involves an objection to a specific theological understanding of the atonement. But more broadly, it reflects a discomfort with the very idea that wrath is a part of God's character. I can understand why people object to the idea of a wrathful God. The thinking goes that God (if he or she or it exists), is a God of love. He loves everyone, and wrath is incompatible with that. This is superficially satisfying, but if you scratch the surface you quickly realize it's incoherent.
A God who only loves is not loving at all. When someone says that they believe God simply loves and that's all there is to it, they think they're being tolerant and open-minded. But I hear the ultimate expression of cultural chauvinism and sheltered privilege. Their idea of God is so monstrous they don't even believe it themselves if pressed to think about it.
We hate and murder and destroy, and God just loves us. We rape and maim and kill, and some vague notion of cosmic love will carry us through and set things right. Racism and oppression run rampant, and our God looks down with indulgence on us all. That is not just myopic; it is disgusting. Does anyone really even believe it, or is it just something we say because it sounds nice? If you really believe a wrathful God is an offensive idea, then why do you get angry at injustice?
If the thought of the wrath of God has never been a great comfort to you, you may have led a sheltered life. If an indulgent, loving God has been sufficient for you, you have yet to explore the depths of your own nature. The Bible says things like, "God is angry with the wicked every day." This is not an embarrassing passage for us modern folks to gloss over. It ought to be comforting! It legitimizes the wrath and longing for justice that we feel. It tells us that God feels it along with us.
(For skeptics, yes, we're now treading close to the problem of evil, another discussion for another time).
And in the Gospel we learn that we're all the same. To put it in absurd yet true terms, none of are so different from Hitler. If a wrathful God is appropriate for history's greatest monsters, through the Gospel we begin to see that it is appropriate for us too. And maybe that's what we have the greatest problem accepting. We don't believe in a wrathful God because we haven't come to grips with who and what we are. We don't believe that we, personally, deserve wrath. That's for the murderers and rapists and slave-traders, not for us. The Gospel pushes back against our self-justification and insists: we're all the same.
Don't get me wrong. God is love. It's just that his wrath helps me to see that.
I realize that this involves an objection to a specific theological understanding of the atonement. But more broadly, it reflects a discomfort with the very idea that wrath is a part of God's character. I can understand why people object to the idea of a wrathful God. The thinking goes that God (if he or she or it exists), is a God of love. He loves everyone, and wrath is incompatible with that. This is superficially satisfying, but if you scratch the surface you quickly realize it's incoherent.
A God who only loves is not loving at all. When someone says that they believe God simply loves and that's all there is to it, they think they're being tolerant and open-minded. But I hear the ultimate expression of cultural chauvinism and sheltered privilege. Their idea of God is so monstrous they don't even believe it themselves if pressed to think about it.
We hate and murder and destroy, and God just loves us. We rape and maim and kill, and some vague notion of cosmic love will carry us through and set things right. Racism and oppression run rampant, and our God looks down with indulgence on us all. That is not just myopic; it is disgusting. Does anyone really even believe it, or is it just something we say because it sounds nice? If you really believe a wrathful God is an offensive idea, then why do you get angry at injustice?
If the thought of the wrath of God has never been a great comfort to you, you may have led a sheltered life. If an indulgent, loving God has been sufficient for you, you have yet to explore the depths of your own nature. The Bible says things like, "God is angry with the wicked every day." This is not an embarrassing passage for us modern folks to gloss over. It ought to be comforting! It legitimizes the wrath and longing for justice that we feel. It tells us that God feels it along with us.
(For skeptics, yes, we're now treading close to the problem of evil, another discussion for another time).
And in the Gospel we learn that we're all the same. To put it in absurd yet true terms, none of are so different from Hitler. If a wrathful God is appropriate for history's greatest monsters, through the Gospel we begin to see that it is appropriate for us too. And maybe that's what we have the greatest problem accepting. We don't believe in a wrathful God because we haven't come to grips with who and what we are. We don't believe that we, personally, deserve wrath. That's for the murderers and rapists and slave-traders, not for us. The Gospel pushes back against our self-justification and insists: we're all the same.
Don't get me wrong. God is love. It's just that his wrath helps me to see that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)