Against Racism and Oppression: August 2008 Archives

Recently on an anti racism list serve, a contributor attacked the idea of identity group caucusing, and argued that the idea of 

white privilege was divisive and we should just all get together and talk about our "racism free" world to be.   Many others responded, this was my contribution. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of identity caucuses has to do with the soul work of transformation.  Native American Indians in the UUA have found that some questions of internalized oppression and the face of racism can best be discussed and ministered to by people who have similar experiences.  The experience of doing anti racism work has shown that identity based caucuses are the best support for people as they ask and process questions relative to this work.

So the idea that caucusing is way to minimize offending people is mistaken. It is a way to help us all learn to talk without defensiveness about how racism oppresses us (it oppresses whites by internalizing habits of domination, which alienates them from their brothers and sisters of color.)   

I will continue to caucus with Native American Indians even after the arrogant preaching of some on this list, because decades of experience has shown me that this is the most effective way to work so that Native Americans are equipped to struggle and flourish in the UUA.    Caucuses of People of Color are also necessary to do similar work, and build unity and we have found these work to promote empowerment.  Those who object, do not seem to object on the basis of experience in the work, rather they make pronouncements like "we can never have unity if people meet separately."    This is ex cathedra, not based on experience.   It comes out of someone's head (ideology) and not out of practice (praxis.)

Those who pronounce that anti-racism work that recognizes relative privilege, designed blindness, and works to unite people with different experiences relative to domination and oppression by forming alliances based on their common interest in overcoming racism is "primarily divisive" and does "great harm."    But decades of praxis belie this declaration.  What experience can be cited to back up his ideological assertion?   I can point to thousands of individuals who have found their voice and become effective workers in our common effort.  Every year we see hundreds more.  

To my white allies, I am your Indian ally..  While we do get together and talk about our common work, I have work to do that must be done with American Indians and People of Color and I support my white allies efforts to get together and do the work that only they can do.  Caucuses do not prevent people from getting together, caucuses empower people with understanding of themselves and the work that they must do, so that when we get together, we can be mutually productive in creating beloved community.  

The Journey Toward Wholeness, the UUA's anti racism effort did teach tens of thousands of Unitarian Universalists about why it is necessary to struggle to overcome white privilege and did encourage people to recognize that this is a struggle and we must form alliances to overcome racism.  But the UUA doesn't have a doctrine, rather this was an analysis based on the best practice of effective anti racist trainers.   

We learned a lot in our work and we made modifications and updated our analysis and improved our training.  This is so different from ideologues who have doctrines to teach.  This is praxis in struggle, we are a learning community.

In a speech by Richard Trumka to the Virginia State Labor Convention, the top ranking labor leader lays it on the line about how racism is harmful to white workers, and that there is no reason not to vote for Barack Obama.  He tells the story of a woman who is under the influence of racism.  For a major labor leader to directly confront racism among white workers in this fashion is a breakthrough.

Paul Rasor in his essay "Liberal Theology and the Challenge of Racism" which is his contribution to Soul Work; anti-racist theologies in dialogue argues that deep in liberal theory there is an antipathy toward community.  Community is seen as restricting the individual and their must be an articulation of rights of the individual, in order to protect the individual from the mob of community. Rasor argues that in order to advance our work of deconstructing racism and other forms of oppression we must renew liberalism to recognize that we are primarily social beings, and it is in supportive community that individuals are able to realize their selves. 

"Our efforts to become genuinely anti-racist are hampered by another liberal ambivalence that history helps to make clear.This ambivalence surfaces as we begin to learn the importance of of community in anti racist work.  Liberals want to create a strong and inclusive community, but we often want to do it without giving up anything, with letting down the barriers we erect around ourselves in the name of individual autonomy.  We wade into te waters of community up to our knees, but we're afraid to let go of the dock and plunge in with our whole bodies. . .

"Our deep seated fear of community, when combined with our tendency toward formalism and abstraction, leads to a deep fear of otherness that we have barely begun to recognize and address.  Fear of the other manifests itself in such liberal ideals as autonomy, self-reliance, and the like and prevents us from seeing we are truelly social selves.

"Liberal political and social theory, too often echoed in liberal religion, tends to protect the individual from the community, from true engagement with the other.  This kind of negative freedom tends to produce a constricted sense of self.  But a love-based understanding of the community would extend the individual and expand the self outward toward the other.  This sort of re-conception of community seems essential if we are serious about our anti racism work."

Unitarian Universalists love to claim that they emerged from the Puritan tradition, and have a long history as liberal Christians.  Understanding Christianity then would seem to me to be a necessary part of understanding Unitarianism and Universalism.  Our religious forebears were participated in the conquest of North America, and sent missionaries among Native American Indians.  We should know something of this history lest we become participants in the denial that characterizes dominant culture response to the American genocide.

George Tinker is an ordained Lutheran minister and on the faculty at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, but he no considers himself a Christian.  He found that he could no longer associate himself with a Church that was so involved in the colonial enterprise of conquest of the Native American Indian peoplles.  Tinker states that 'perhaps the most fearful aspect of the church's complicity in the conquest of the native peoples in the latter sense is that it always happened with the best of intentions.'

Missionary Conquest; the Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide is Tinker's full length treatment of the role of Christian missionaries in the destruction of America's indigenous peoples.  He studeies  four missionaries;  John Eliot, Junipero Serra, Pierre-Jean De Smet, and Henry Benjamin Whipple.  These men are held up to this day as cultural heros for white America.  But the results speak for a different interpretation, what they did was destructive for communities they impacted, what ever the sentiments they proclaimed. 

Tinker examines the policies and the results of those policies and shows how the Christian Church contributed to genocide.

John Eliot, a prominent Puritan, was a full of colonial arrogance, viewing the indigenous culture as inferior to his own, and seeing the Natives as under the influence of the Devil. Junipero Serra's California missions were in an integral part with the oppressive Spanish colonial efforts to enrich Spain.  The French man Pierre-Jean De Smet, a Jesuit, who was so self involved in his rational, Catholic theology that he thought nothing of mocking the rituals and practices of the indigenous people who he encountered. . Henry Benjamin Whipple, the first Episcopal bishop of Minnesota, worked to take the land from the Indians in the northern plains so that they would be forced to adopt the European way of life. 

It is often said that becoming an anti racist involves transformation.  In this series of excerpts from her Soul Work essay "A Struggle To Inhabit By Country" Rebecca Parker applies the theological concept of conversion through engaged action to point to the nature of anti racist transformation.

"A person of faith, seeking out of love and desire for life to inhabit his or her country, needs to be engaged in incarnational social action.  Activism returns one to the actual world as participatory citizen and agent of history. Through activism, compliant absence is transformed into engaged presence.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"This is my country.  Love calls me beyond denial and disassociation.  It is not enough to think of racism as a problem of "human relations" to be cured by me and others like me treating everyone fairly, with respect and without prejudice.  Racism is more.  It is a problem of segregated knowledge, mystification of facts, anesthetization of feeling, exploitation of people and violence against the communion/community of our humanity.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"The habit of living somewhere else rather than here in a constructed "reality" that minimizes my country's history of both violence and beauty and ignores the present facts, keeps me from effectively engaging in the actual world.  I have the sensation of being a disembodied spectator as structures of racism are recreated before my eyes. But involvement in the steps of conversion -- theological reflection, remedial education, soul work, and engaged action -- moves me from enclosure to openness."

Today there are front page articles in the nation's major newspapers, and on the cable news about the census bureaus report that in a few short decades the white majority will no longer be a majority.  Latino/as, African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans and other so called minorities will together constitute the majority, and America will then be a nation of racialized ethnic groups each of which is a minority.   By the middle of this century the white population will be older than the population as a whole, and the United States will have 400 million people (it is a little over 300 million today.) 

The Los Angeles  Times puts it this way "[t]he white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."

Historically Unitarian was a religion of the white elite, and after the merger the spirit of Unitarianism prevailed over the more inclusive and generous Universalist way of being religiously liberal.  While there have been people of color in Unitarian and Universalist congregations in every stage of our history, those "pioneers in a white denomination" were exceptions to the rule, and did not motivate any concerted effort to reach out and seek to become more ethnically diverse.  

In the late 1960s, because of the work of Unitarian Universalists in the civil rights movement there was an influx of African Americans into our congregations.  These Unitarian Universalists while they saw the promise of religious liberalism also experienced the elitism and complacency of the white majority, and there arose a movement of African Americans and their allies to build Unitarian Universalism in African American communities.  While this movement had wide support, it became divided relative to tactics, and the defenders of the status quo were able to turn back the effort.

Many Unitarian Universalists left the movement and the leadership settled back into self congratulation and complacency.

Again in the 1980s African Americans began to organize and came to the conclusion that it was "internalized racism" that was the main obstacle to Unitarian Universalism becoming more diverse.   In the 1990s Unitarian Universalists resolved at General Assemblies to become more diverse and recognized that they must overcome their own cooperation with systemic racism to accomplish that task.  While much has been done, and the African American initiatives provided an opening for other people of color to find their voice,  we still have much work to do before our congregations reflects the ethnic and racial make up of the nation as a whole

Given my experience with  working with congregations (currently Throop Unitarian Universalist Church in Pasadena, California),  I believe that most Unitarian Universalists would support the work to become an anti racist, anti oppressive and multi cultural community if they were given leadership by their minister(s) and lay leadership.  This leadership in turn will need support from the Unitarian Universalist Association providing excellence in programs such as Building The World We Dream About, and Now is the Time!  Leading Congregations Into a Multiracial, Multicultural Future.

Five thousand years ago the indigenous people of Southern Mexico first domesticated corn, from a inedible progenitor teosinte.  Thus began the agricultural revolution in North America enabling Native peoples of America to grow a surplus that would take through the winters.  The land was now able to support a larger population of people, and the arts were able to be developed.  A similar development had begun in Tigris and Euphrates Valley enabling Europe, African, and Asia to begin the journey toward civilizations.  According to the Mayans. people are descended from corn.

Today the Mexican people derive at least 60 percent of their calories from corn, eaten as tortillas, tomales, and according to Wendy Call corn is fashioned in Oaxaca province into  "baked totopos. A large, round cracker that stays fresh for months, the totopo represents local culture as much as maize represents Mexican culture. Baking totopos is a special skill, passed from mother to daughter to granddaughter."  Oaxaca may be home to the widest diversity of corn varieties in the world, but Call reports that the indigenous farmers in Oaxaca are having increased difficulty finding a market for their corn.  They are being undercut by the relatively cheap corn imported from the United States under the so called agreement called the North American Free Trade Agreement.  While corn is being processed in the United States into biofuels, and the price of processed foods and fresh corn in the super market is making increasingly difficult for working people to pay their bills, corn grown in the United States is being used to undermine Oaxaca's farmers and the provinces economy.  

All over Mexico trade policies are displacing people from agriculture who then become part of the Mexico's surplus labor force.  Many of these people join the migration north to become America's undocumented work force.  Read Wendy Call's article in Yes magazine on indigenous rights organizing and cooperatives for how Oaxaca's people are fighting back.

This is sermon by Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley (1949-2006)

When I was studying for the ministry, one of the expectations was that each week, the entire community would attend chapel (the worship service). Although I had been a Unitarian Universalist for more than a decade, I was still healing from the pain of my fundamentalist past, and I had not yet mustered the courage to attend chapel in this United Methodist seminary. But with the support of three Unitarian Universalist friends, one Friday toward the end of the first semester, I dragged myself to worship.

I wasn't sure what kind of message I would hear, but it was a week before exams, and I hoped for a place where I could center myself, and find some internal spiritual resources for the days ahead. To my surprise, there was no sermon. It was early December, and the entire liturgy focused on Advent, ending with a celebration of the Eucharist. Now I had not attended a Christian communion for over 20 years, but I tried to approach it with an open mind.

The prayer, offered by Dr. Mark Burrows, began with these words: "We, who are the children of Abraham and Sarah. . ." I don't recall the rest of the sentence, because in a split second, my mind went blank. It simply refused to be present to this experience that was sacred for most others in attendance. I began to weep-quietly at first-but a whimper soon turned to tears, then uncontrollable tears. My friends sat beside me trying to be supportive, but didn't have a clue what was so upsetting about that simple phrase: "We, who are the children of Abraham and Sarah?" I had no harsh feelings toward Dr. Burrows, but the moment I heard those words suggesting that I was a descendent of Abraham and Sarah, I felt the pain of exclusion.

My rational mind told me that the I should not take it literally; that the statement was merely a symbolic reference to our Jewish and Christian heritage. But that rationale didn't help. I simply could not get beyond the complex dynamics of race and class and gender in the biblical story. I knew the story of Abraham and Sarah in the book of Genesis, but I also knew the story of Abraham and Hagar, an Egyptian woman whose ethnicity and social standing made her an outcast in ancient Israel, a stranger in a strange land.

As a woman of African heritage, I identified myself as one of Hagar's children, and I wondered why she had not been mentioned in the prayer. Was she not worthy of mention because she was a slave?

According to the story, when Hagar's son Ishmael was about 14 years old, Sarah became jealous. Hagar had sacrificed her body and her beauty. She had postponed her life in order to give this elderly couple the gift of a child. And yet, Sarah was jealous. Here were two brothers, Ishmael and Isaac, whose childhood play was, no doubt, innocent of any social or economic distinctions. And yet, Sarah's worry about inheritance spawned her jealously, which led to a crisis in the household. In the end, Sarah threw Hagar and Ishmael out of the house-banished them to the wilderness, with no food and only a half gallon of water.

A woman and her son alone-out in the wilderness, homeless. No crisis hot line. No overnight shelter. No abuse counselor. She needed someone to hear her story, someone to help her figure things out-where she was going to live, how she was going to feed herself and her son. But there was no pastor, no prophet, no priest, no lay minister to help her figure it all out. According to the story, in the depths of her despair, an angel appeared at Hagar's side, and asked: Where are you coming from, and where are you going?

That, my friends, is a question we need to ask ourselves. 

Where are you coming from, and where are you going?

Some say that the angel appearing at Hagar's side 

was the voice of God. 

Others say that it was the 'still small voice' within. 

I like to think of it as Love's call, asking her to reflect not only on her dilemma, but on who she was and what she was doing with her life. 

Love calls out to us as well, asking us to remember who we are -that we are beings connected to all being, connected to a process larger and more fundamental than our beliefs about the world

The first source speaks of the transcendent mystery and wonder of the universe asks us to call into existence that which has been forgotten: that we are not here to act as if we are brothers and sisters, but to remember that we really are brothers and sisters whose very reason for being is to love and care for one another. 

This is the purpose of the church.

This is the work of the soul. Soul work is hard work, but it must be done if we are to be fully alive. One thing that makes it difficult is that it is transcendent-we must move beyond ourselves, to the place of empathy and compassion; to the place of hospitality-hospitality of the human spirit. This is what counters alienation, nihilism, and brokenness in the human family. Soul work. Compassion. Hospitality. It is the work of the church. It is our salvation. It is what ministry is-to save souls through hospitality of the human spirit. So may it be.

Last year the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, both the U.S. and Canada voted against it.  While it is significant that the international community (supported by the majority of the worlds peoples)  have come to understand indigenous peoples' right to protect their lands and preserve their traditional lifestyles, most of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples continue to face destructive policies at the hands of corporations and the governments that they own

Ben Powless, a Mohawk Indian from the United States who works with the Indigenous Environment Network thinks U.S. and Canadian governments will continue to be hostile to indigenous rights unless a majority of their citizens are informed enough to hold those accountable who play a powerful role in shaping public policy.

"The wider public must understand indigenous peoples' rights and concerns," he said. "They must act to protect them because as the most marginalised group in this world, it spells out how the rest of us will be treated, and is also the surest way to protect our last remaining ecosystems." 

Halder Rizvi agrees with Powless and she points out:

"Many climate change scientists share this view. They think the indigenous peoples can play a vital role in preserving biodiversity and the planet's resources because they live in close proximity with nature."

In the late 1950s, a young African American minister applied for Unitarian ministerial fellowship. He was ordained a Methodist but his theology was Unitarian. He wished to transfer to the American Unitarian Association.  David Eaton sat in the office of Dana Greeley, the President of the A.U.A., and Greeley said "you seem like a wonderful minister, but there isn't a single Unitarian pulpit that would want you as there minister.

Seven years later Rev. David Eaton became the Senior Minister of All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Washington, DC when that church decided that its commitment to civil rights could only become real in a majority Black city, if it called a Black minister.  Without any help from their denomination, they went out and found David Eaton and he was called to All Souls.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott began in 1957, and the next ten years can be called the era of the civil rights movement. Because Unitarian Universalists were active in the civil rights struggles, and because we were strived to be accepting of all peoples, large numbers of African Americans began joining Unitarian congregations 

Many of our urban congregations such as Philadelphia, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati, Baltimore, saw significant increases in membership, and became genuinely diverse institutions, this in an age when Jim Crow's walls were falling.  At the same time many of our congregations in urban communities surrounded by People of Color were not engaged in the civil rights movement, and those congregations grew smaller. 

The African American Unitarian Universalists started talking to one another, and comparing notes.  They came up with a program.  They had discovered that Unitarian Universalists congregations had sold their properties in the inner city and moved out to suburban campuses, thus joining into the great white flight after World War Two. How could we build Unitarian Universalism among African Americans they asked, if Unitarian Universalists run from the Black community, run away to the suburbs, sell the property and take the money with them.  

In 1968 and just two months after King was assassinated the Black Caucus presented their program to the General Assembly. They wanted funds to rebuild Unitarian Universalism in the inner city. They wanted African Americans to be included on the committees of the UUA. And while the General Assembly passed the resolution, and instructed the administration to support these demands, the President and the Board were adamantly opposed, they worked hard to overturn the resolve of the General Assembly.

To make a long story short, the next two years were very contentious, Unitarian Universalists wanted to respond to racial justice, but the UUA administration derailed the process. We saw General Assemblies with delegates walking out,  congregations making resolutions condemning the UUA President and Board, and a determined contingent of our youth staging a sit down in the UUA headquarters.

But in the end the defeated Black Caucus gave up, and as many as a thousand African Americans, people of color,  and youthful white supporters left our movement. The Black Empowerment controversy as it has been called,  was a major set back for Unitarian Universalism. It resulted in losses in membership throughout the country, it resulted in demoralization of Unitarian Universalists about being involved in questions of racial justice and it resulted in fear, that working again against racism would just mean more conflict and division.

But the problems that the Black Affairs Council identified were real, and a solid core of African American and white Unitarian Universalists were determined to do something about it. Over the years much progress has been made people of color have formed organizations to address questions of racial and cultural identity, today we have DRUUM,  the Diverse and Revolutionary  Unitarian Universalist Ministries which coordinates meetings of the Asian and Pacific Caucus, the African descent caucus,  

the Native American Indian caucus and we have La Familia Global, the Latino/Latina Unitarian Universalist caucus with DRUUMM

We have increased the number of ministers of color to several score, that number was four in 1990. and we have  over 60 students of color preparing for Unitarian Universalist ministry.

The forty years since the beginning of the Black Affairs Council in 1967 have been difficult years for Unitarian Universalists who have been striving to transform this liberal religious community from a white denomination full of self satisfaction about what it has done for colored folk, to one that genuinely seeks to overcome the legacy of racism so that we might include the cultures and concerns of people of color.

In the words of the Rev. Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley;

In most of our congregations that I have been a part of or worked with, structures that create and sustain whiteness are normative. 

There is presumption from some clergy and some laity that the cannons of music, and literature, and art, and language, and social discourse, rooted in the European experience, are normative. 

Euro-centrism is seen as logical and rational,  and those who express a need for a spirited form of worship or those who use a different language set are somehow made to feel less educated, less than worthy.

 These presumptions make it extremely difficult for culturally oppressed groups to find a place in our congregations. 

Speaking personally, while I enjoy and appreciate 

a wide variety of cultural traditions, 

when I cannot find myself in a worshipping community, 

it drains the life of the spirit out of me, and I must go elsewhere to nurture my soul.

If I and other colleagues who are rooted in cultures 

outside Europe are to be nurtured in our movement, 

then I must keep the faith that things can be different. 

Being open to and supporting new possibilities in ministry, different cultural forms in worship, new ways of seeing--these too are important to keeping the faith, to nurturing the spirit. 

If you will stand with me in solidarity in an expanding circle of culture so that it includes all of us, you too will be keeping the faith.

This call for a more inclusive culture in Unitarian Universalism has been made again and again. And while we see progress, there is so much to do,

Many Unitarian Universalists are so comfortable in their middle class Euro-centric world view, that sometimes it seems the task is insurmountable.

But this is a spiritual struggle for the soul of Unitarian Universalism,  this is soul work. 

Throop Unitarian Universalist Church (Pasadena, California) is a field test site for the UUA's new curriculum aimed to help congregations become more welcoming to people of different cultures and races.  The whole congregation and the reflection group that is guiding the effort has engaged in the various exercises that have helped Throop become more aware of how racism works in the United States, and how  by becoming more aware we can take steps to become an intentionally anti racist, and multicultural congregation.  Throop Church was and is racially and cultural diverse, but like many Unitarian Universalist congregations the congregation's work against racism was guided more by good intentions than by conscious efforts.  Because of our work together progress is being made to be consciously anti racist as we work toward becoming joyfully and throughly multicultural.

For many years Unitarian Universalists have sought tools that would help them become more racially and ethnically diverse.  One idea was that there be a curriculum similar to "Welcoming Congregation that could help a congregation become more aware of internalized racism and more culturally competent as well. . In February 2004, stakeholder groups sent representatives to met at the UUA in Boston to talk about the possibilities.

 Mark Hicks, who recently joined the staff at Meadville Lombard Theological School was chosen to be  the curriculum author. 

45 congregations were selected to field test Building the World We Dream About from September 2007 through December 2008. The goal for general distribution of Building Our World is 2009.  I strongly recommend that each Unitarian Universalist Congregation commit to this effort, because this work is soul work.

(Clyde Grubbs, the publisher of People So Bold! is the minister at Throop UU Church)

Cherokee freedman won a partial victory in their struggle against the officials of the Cherokee Nation who seek to disenfranchise them. 

he District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29 by its decision that the

1866 treaty between the Cherokee and the United States,promised ''all the rights of native Cherokees'' to the former slaves - and their descendants, ''who came to be known as freedmen.'' 

And it held that individual officers of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma ''cannot seek shelter'' from freedmen legal action within the tribe's sovereign immunity.   Thus the leadership can be held liable for their actions against the Freedman.  This ruling also opens the door to efforts by the Congressional Black Caucus to apply economic pressure against the leadership of the Cherokee Nation by denying federal benefits until they recognize the rights of the Cherokee Freedman.

Indigenous peoples are constantly struggling in the United States to preserve their cultures and their languages in the face of outright hostility from the dominant culture authorities.   When I am asked why the mission of People So Bold! is "overcoming colonialism through faith and action" I point to many examples of the colonial stance of the United States, especially policies and practices that oppress America's Native American Indians.   Attempts to americanize America's first peoples by denying recognition of their language rights.  So this victory in the US District Court of the Yupik people (with the support of the Native American Rights Fund and the American Civil Liberty Union) is a victory for all people who seek a county based on justice and inclusion.

This is the press release of the Native American Rights Fund.

ANCHORAGE -- Late yesterday, a federal court ordered Alaska's state and local elections officials to provide effective language assistance to citizens who speak Yup'ik, the primary language of a majority of voters in the Bethel region of Alaska. The victory came in a legal challenge brought by Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four Alaska Natives and four tribal governments.

"This is a huge victory, not only for Yup'ik voters, but for all Alaska Natives who want to participate in the democratic process," said NARF attorney Natalie Landreth, who is lead co-counsel in the case. "The state of Alaska has recently taken the first step towards complying with its obligations under the law. But as the court recognized, the state's recent efforts to provide Yup'ik language assistance are 'relatively new and untested' over 30 years after Alaska was first required to provide that assistance. Yup'ik voters will remain vigilant to work with the court to make sure the state's first steps are not its last. Voting is too precious a right to be denied by bureaucratic neglect."

The landmark ruling protects Yup'ik-speaking voters in the Bethel region of Alaska by requiring that the state provide language assistance, including trained poll workers who are bilingual in English and Yup'ik; sample ballots in written Yup'ik; a written Yup'ik glossary of election terms; consultation with local tribes to ensure the accuracy of Yup'ik translations; a Yup'ik language coordinator; and pre-election and post-election reports to the court tracking the state's efforts. Alaska is required to comply with the order under the penalty of contempt.

In issuing his ruling, U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess concluded that the Yup'ik voters and tribes clearly established that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their language and voter assistance claims under the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). Judge Burgess cited evidence of "strikingly similar experiences" of "multiple voters, in different districts and with different poll workers" being denied the opportunity to receive voting assistance. He also found that while the state recently took some steps to address the longstanding lack of language assistance, its "efforts to overhaul the language assistance program did not begin in earnest until after this litigation began."

"We applaud the court for this important ruling," said Jason Brandeis, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Alaska. "It is time to turn the page on the discriminatory practices of the past and fully allow Yup'ik voters and other Alaskan Natives the right to be included in the political process. Remedies including outreach, qualified translators, sample ballots and allowing voters to get assistance when they need it will provide these voters with some of the mandated tools they need to participate in the most fundamental act of citizenship."

Alaska is one of just five states covered in its entirety by the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Those provisions, sections 4(f)(4) and 203, apply to areas that meet certain threshold requirements for numbers of citizens with limited English proficiency. Section 208 has nationwide applicability and gives "any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write" a right to receive "assistance by a person of the voter's choice." The temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including sections 4(f)(4) and 203, were reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for an additional 25 years.

"Since Alaska became covered by the Voting Rights Act over 30 years ago, it has viewed its obligations as optional and nothing more than an administrative inconvenience to be set aside for higher priorities," said James Tucker, an attorney with the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "This order tells the state, 'enough is enough.' Yup'ik voters are entitled to language assistance for every election, not merely when it is convenient for election officials."

Defendants in the lawsuit include Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai, Regional Elections Supervisors Becka Baker and Michelle Speegle and Bethel Municipal Clerk Lori Strickler.

Attorneys for the Alaska Natives are Landreth of NARF, Brandeis of the ACLU of Alaska, Neil Bradley of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project and Tucker of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office.

The order granting NARF and ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction is online at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/36220lgl20080730.html

I have been told by people who study these things that in all the stories ever told that there are only 36 plots.  So the savior story is one we have heard before,  a person, or group of person is in predicament from which they can not escape.  Perhaps their situation is of their own making, perhaps it is the result of an malevolent other.  What ever got them into this jam, they are on the road to disaster and do not have the internal resources to find a new way to redemption.  A hero comes among them, and shows them the solution. 

There are two variations in this story, the hero who comes from within the community.  The story called "the Rabbis gift" is my favorite example of this variation, because the messiah turns out to be all of the monks -- they discover the savior in each other and in themselves.  The other variation is when the hero comes from the outside, and shows the doomed community a new way that they could not have found on their own.

Which brings me to my question.  Is it possible that a plot that holds up an outside hero saving a community perpetuates that communities disempowerment?  I think of the white savior movie.  We have seen the story in so many variations, remember the white teacher who comes into an inner city class room and through love and patience inspires her students to see themselves as bright and creative?  The teacher gets resistance from the powers that be (principals, school boards, the other teachers) who do not believe that these kids can be taught.  The empowering teacher is breaking the rules and she must show the authorities that she, not they are righteous.

These movies are often based on true stories.  There actually was a white teacher who actually did help a bunch of young people of color discover their gifts and become a community of learners.  There actually was such a person whose actions can be turned into "a white savior" plot for a movie.   Such a person should be honored and held up, along with the thousands of teachers, parents, community activists, principals and young people of color who act within their communities to overcome serious problems and ways of acting that are bringing the community to ruin.  

When the film maker takes one story out of thousands and makes a movie out of it, that is creating an artifice.  It is reconstructing reality to tell a story, a story that has been selected, and presented for its impact.  Hollywood chooses from among all the stories of  people acting to make a difference the story of the good white teacher who makes a difference in some young people-of colors lives, and it is the movie, not the teachers original action that perpetuates the dominate cultures narrative of incompetent people of color being rescued by white people.

To turn this world we live in toward a just and sustainable community will take a lot of people, each of those people acting to empower each other.  Let us honor all who act to create human community, and let us see films that tell those stories of mutual empowerment.