"Evil must be defeated!" 

John McCain 8/16/08

"Enough is enough! We're going to put an end to greed!"  

John McCain 9/17/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are

looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will

help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin

and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a

personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents,

because "every family has challenges," even as Black and Latino families

with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible,

pathological and arbiters of social decay. 

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like

Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with

you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot

shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a

great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years

like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then

returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller

than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while if you're Black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school, requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people

immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an

extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union,

and whose motto is "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or

that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to

come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the

work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to

vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child

labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely

question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your

political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a

typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being Black and merely

knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a

hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a

great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a Black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk

about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no

substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be

considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour

speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on

several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would

do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose

pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological

principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're Black and friends with a Black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates

America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a

reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a

"trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word

answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question,

or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to

Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an

average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college

class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.) and that's OK,

and you're cut out to be president, but if you're Black and you graduate

near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make

good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured

in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having

obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that

addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a Black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you ever sold drugs.

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be

viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you "dangerously  naive and immature."

White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always

hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and insisting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and

experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser

adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her

convention speech. 

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow

someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because a lot of white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, is a problem that white people can't see unless they  overcome their own denial.   White privilege is not seeing your white privilege. 

Unitarian Universalism arose within the enlightenment and shared the world view of subjective liberalism (the other is hostile to my freedom, that community is best that leaves me alone) as opposed to social freedom (I can not be free unless everyone else shares in freedom.  Solidarity and mutual responsibility enhances individuals to realize their full potential.)  In the last part of the twentieth century, Unitarian Universalists began to question their alienation from the natural world, and whether their embrace of subjective liberalism was compatible their longing for loving community.

What are the consequences of the Western or Modern world view, the view that objectifies Mother Earth and all creatures of the earth and sky?  It strikes me that this world view alienates human beings from the creation, from each other, from their own inner most selves and from the mystery in which we live, and move and have our being.  

Will Tuttle, Ph.D., 'The World Peace Diet'  writes:

"The spiritual connection between animals and humans grows out of

understanding that we are all expressions of eternal benevolent

consciousness, and as we acknowledge this interconnection and live in

harmony with it, our lives become prayers of compassion and healing."  

It is my contention that the enlightenment world view has rationalized racism, total war, and untold violence against human beings.  In other entries I have and will develop these points more fully.  But I wish to conclude with what it means to us to be alienated from our relatives, the animals.

The way we produce food and bring it to consumers is destructive to life and flows from profound alienation from our own nature.  Unitarian Universalists now have the opportunity of discussing and acting on their own relation to the our Mother the Earth in a a study action initiative that many of our congregations are engaged in, Ethical Eating: Food and Environmental Justice raises many possibilities of looking at our assumptions and make affirmative responses to restore our relation to the world, and that which we may call Holy.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told The Observer that people should start by having one meat-free day per week then cut back further.

The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

"Give up meat for one day (per week) initially, and decrease it from there," he said.

"In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity."

Other small-scale lifestyle changes would also help to combat climate change, he said without elaborating.

"That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy."

Pachauri is due to give a speech in London on Monday under the title: "Global Warning: the impact of meat production and consumption on climate change".

Pachauri, who was re-elected for a second term six-year term as IPCC chairman last week, has headed the organisation since 2002 and oversaw its seminal assessment report in 2007 which gave graphic forecasts of the risks posed by global warming.

The IPCC warned then that without action the planet's rising temperatures could unleash potentially catastrophic change to earth's climate system, leading to hunger, drought, storms and massive species loss.

The organization also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with former US vice president Al Gore.

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.

"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."

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. 

Here is a resource for Ethical Eating that I will be distributing to members of my congregation during our discussion of the implications of food, and how we eat it for the world we long to live in.