Culture and Media Watch: November 2005 Archives

This is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the annual Day of Mourning on Coles Hill overlooking Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, one of the early sites of the European invasion of the Americas.  I was there in 1970, and while I have returned on many occasions, I have been there in spirit and solidarity every year.  It is hard to witness the fact of genocide in face of the national ritual of self congratulations and privilege.  But there are signs that more and more dominant culture people are willing to look at there past to help them understand the violence and arrogance of the present regime.  If one wants to understand Bush and Cheney one must look back to opening chapters of the European settlement of the Americas.  What was the first act of those who arrived on the Mayflower?  Upon arriving at what is now Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod, a boat of armed men was sent ashore who stole the entire winter food supply of the village of Native people.  Then they proceeded to what is now Plymouth where the people of God founded their armed and aggressive Bible commonwealth.  The children of the Mayflower (joined by those who aspire to that heritage) now use their power to steal the natural resources of the entire world.

Robert Jensen writes:  "Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers. 
The first president, George Washington, in 1783 said he preferred buying Indians' land rather than driving them off it because that was like driving "wild beasts" from the forest. He compared Indians to wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape."
Thomas Jefferson -- president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the "merciless Indian Savages" -- was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, "[W]e shall destroy all of them." 
As the genocide was winding down in the early 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt (president #26) defended the expansion of whites across the continent as an inevitable process "due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace into the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world hold sway." Roosevelt also once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth." 

Jensen argues that those who overcome this legacy must join the witnesses on Copes Hill, and make the fourth Thursday in November into a day of awareness and renewal, by taking stock of the genocide that is foundational to the national history.

So let us  celebrate and feast, with awareness of our history and a commitment to transformation.

Its a scandal that our science teachers have become rigid, teaching only evolution theory, when they could be teaching the alternative theory that a divining intelligence preordained things just the way they are in this most perfect of worlds.  The movement to turn old fashioned one-paradigm-at-time science classes into forums for discussion of every interest groups favorite theories is only beginning.

from the Institute for Stork Research and Science

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the
theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many
people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have
been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the
world's leading scientists are in favor of the theory of the stork.
If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must
only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative
theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist.
This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human fetal development contains several features that
the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is
approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim.
Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a
result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well
documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of
a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive
correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are
decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific
methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered
by the stork.

submitted by Linda Sherry to the open UUMA Huumor List.

"And this day shall become a memorial for you, and you shall observe it as a festival for the LORD, for your generations, as an eternal decree shall you observe it. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your homes ... you shall guard the unleavened bread, because on this very day I will take you out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree. - Exodus 12:14-17

Religions mark rituals of reference. remembering events that define the identity of the people.  Often these rituals of reference mark memories of suffering, enslavement, humiliation, and then liberation and renewal.  Christianity has the Passion which is answered by the Resurrection marked by Good Friday and Easter.  Judaism has an ancient memory of slavery and a subsequent passing over to freedom,  ritually celebrated at Passover.  Judaism returns to this theme again and again in other rituals of reference such as Purim and Chanukah.

Many Native American communities recall the long marches of forced removals with rituals of reference.  It is a scandal among indigenous peoples that dominant culture spiritual seekers come to celebrate Native American spirituality,  because they seem in such a rush to be one with nature, and one with the dance,  but clueless about the suffering and brokenness that the rituals seek to address.

The spirituals of the African American people arose to address terror and degradation.  Slavery and after emancipation Lynch Law are the context for these songs of freedom.  When religious liberals sing these songs, what suffering are they addressing?    When we sing that we will let our light shine,  what long nights of terror are we defying.  What horrors do we wish to overcome?  If we sing these songs with out deep congregational reflection on the context of their origins, and recognition that for the community of origin they are rituals of reference are we not celebrating cheap grace?

When questions of cultural misappropriation are raised around the singing of African American spirituals, it is not simply a concern that "white people don't clap on the right beat" or "y'all don't sing with gusto and passion" - the concern is taking a song that has context in community memories and represents a ritual of reference in the African American community,  and seems to be used for some other purpose in the liberal congregation.  Much of the writing on this subject by dominant culture ministers and musicians appears to be defensive and more concerned with rights, than with responsibilities.

Appropriate use requires communicating the context under which the song arose and the meaning in depth for the community of origin.  In that context that the singing of such music would contribute toward our common struggle for wholeness and right relations.

On November, 14th, 1918, Margaret Sanger was arrested for operating a birth control clinic.  "The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time," predicted futurist and historian H.G. Wells in 1931. "When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."

In today's New York Times, Gail Collins writes "Another election has come and gone, and with it yet another demonstration of American voters' fascinating indifference to the sexual behavior of their public officials."

. . . .

"The terrible truth is that great public leadership and domestic fidelity do not really go hand in hand. Some of our favorite national leaders were unreliable on the domestic front. Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind, as does John F. Kennedy. And the current mood of the electorate seems to clearly favor the argument that things were better when the worst thing the president did wrong was have sex with an intern in the Oval Office."


But all the examples that history provides (and there are many come to mind) are male politicos.  Is this really and example of public indifference to sexual misconduct by public officials, or is one more sign that "the old double standard" of ancient patriarchy is still a part of the expectations of moral Americans?  Is it really "what one does in ones own bedroom is one's private business" or is it "boys will be boys."    Gail Collins begins to explore this in her editorial column asking whether the voters would extend a similar latitude to a female politico.  Her conclusion, probably not.